Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What does it matter if there is no accepted model of causality.....you've already earlier asked why the big bang even requires being caused?

1) The fact that there isn't any is one of the reasons for asking that
2) Certain causal models allow for things to be caused that other causal models would hold to be uncaused.

so pray tell why this is the only possible big bang in existence?

Because it is existence.

if I had very low confidence in the theory before, I now have none...

Sometimes it helps to have some basic familiarity with a field, theory, subject, topic, etc., before determining what confidence you have in claims about it.

 

[Thief]

I think I said so before all of this....and it bears repeating...

if the singularity had been a simple explosion....
all of the universe would have been dealt as one pulse of energy every increasing in diameter.
no rotation, no spiral, no spin......

That is NOT what see when we look up.

for the motion to 'gel' as it has done so.....
the singularity must be in rotation...BEFORE...the 'bang'.

that would be the pinch and snap of God's fingers.

hehehehe......not god of the gaps....
God of the SNAP!

 

[Demonslayer]

if the singularity had been a simple explosion....
all of the universe would have been dealt as one pulse of energy every increasing in diameter.
no rotation, no spiral, no spin......

How could you possibly know such a thing? We see rotative action in explosions on earth. When something explodes we reguarly see pieces of that thing spinning wildly away from the center of the explosion. There is no reason to think what you're saying is true, did someone tell you that or did you read it somewhere you could provide a link to?

 

[Thief]

if the singularity had been a simple explosion....
all of the universe would have been dealt as one pulse of energy every increasing in diameter.
no rotation, no spiral, no spin......

How could you possibly know such a thing? We see rotative action in explosions on earth. When something explodes we reguarly see pieces of that thing spinning wildly away from the center of the explosion. There is no reason to think what you're saying is true, did someone tell you that or did you read it somewhere you could provide a link to?

basic rules of motion.

It might help to say.....the singularity was not an item of substance.
not until the substance would gel.....many years later.

I envision energy.....set into a swirl.
the formation of substance would follow suit.....a swirling motion

 

[Demonslayer]

basic rules of motion.

LOL. Is there a "basic rules of motion" book I can read that says every explosion results in pin-straight projectiles with no spinning or rotation at all, and that all the projectiles travel in a dead straight line from the center of the explosion?

Ever see anything explode? Me thinks someone fed you a line.

 

[Thief]

basic rules of motion.

LOL. Is there a "basic rules of motion" book I can read that says every explosion results in pin-straight projectiles with no spinning or rotation at all, and that all the projectiles travel in a dead straight line from the center of the explosion?

Ever see anything explode? Me thinks someone fed you a line.

I edited.....

 

[Desert Snake]

Yay. The classic creationist defense ("Evolution is just a theory...").

Defense of what? Some random theory? Your theory doesn't make sense, it has nothing to do with creationism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Many people have already scrambled from this theory, at least what made the theory ''unique'',

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your theory doesn't make sense, it has nothing to do with creationism.

It's not my theory, and while it has nothing to do with creationism, your little "just a theory" response is typical of creationist arguments: belittle established science by conflating vernacular usage of "theory" with how theories are understood by scientists. Your response and mentality here are those of a typical creationist. You don't understand it, you aren't a scientist, and you use colloquial senses of a term to belittle scientific theories you aren't familiar with. You don't actually address the scientific literature, you don't indicate you are aware of what this is, but you do make vague ad hominem posts (vague in the sense that, while I know they are insulting and lack substance, I can't even determine what exactly your insults refer to).

 

[Desert Snake]

It's not my theory, and while it has nothing to do with creationism, your little "just a theory" response is typical of creationist arguments: belittle established science by conflating vernacular usage of "theory" with how theories are understood by scientists. Your response and mentality here are those of a typical creationist. You don't understand it, you aren't a scientist, and you use colloquial senses of a term to belittle scientific theories you aren't familiar with. You don't actually address the scientific literature, you don't indicate you are aware of what this is, but you do make vague ad hominem posts (vague in the sense that, while I know they are insulting and lack substance, I can't even determine what exactly your insults refer to).

Lol I do understand physics that don't work. I do understand unlikely scenarios given the situation.

vague appeal to authority.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Lol I do understand physics that don't work.

Perhaps you could provide some demonstration that you are familiar with the relevant physics and evidence here. The last time you responded so dismissively to a post of mine, you reduced measure theory, real analysis, and advanced set theory to 1+1=2 and then deleted your posts. However, you didn't do so quickly enough to hide the fact that your knowledge of mathematics isn't sufficient to enable you to understand the relevant physics here.

 

[Thief]

Lol I do understand physics that don't work. I do understand unlikely scenarios given the situation.

vague appeal to authority.

are you suggesting.....no One in control?
energy was 'self' generating?
substance was 'self' generating?

and the formations that followed.....energy and substance just 'knew' what to do and how to do it?

 

[Desert Snake]

are you suggesting.....no One in control?
energy was 'self' generating?
substance was 'self' generating?

and the formations that followed.....energy and substance just 'knew' what to do and how to do it?

My ''necessary'' default for momentum can be separated from the something from nothing aspect, imo. Which, regardless of whether one believes in a creator /I go witth that idea, is just too unlikely. The theories now would be more like mini-bangs, isolated bangs, etcs, the ''big bang'' idea is essentially cheesed;
To your question specifically, no I am a creationist, I don't think that parsing the idea is formatted to this particular topic though

 

[Thief]

My ''necessary'' default for momentum can be separated from the something from nothing aspect, imo. Which, regardless of whether one believes in a creator /I go witth that idea, is just too unlikely. The theories now would be more like mini-bangs, isolated bangs, etcs, the ''big bang'' idea is essentially cheesed; run, I would advise

so toss the singularity aside and favor a bunch of little ones....
and they all share the same sense of 'self' and they all obey the same rules and
want to play together in this universe( one word) as if they all had the same Source.....

and would that be....the same Source....for all of your little bangs?

 

[Desert Snake]

so toss the singularity aside and favor a bunch of little ones....
and they all share the same sense of 'self' and they all obey the same rules and
want to play together in this universe( one word) as if they all had the same Source.....

and would that be....the same Source....for all of your little bangs?

No, I'm not a bang proponent in the first place. If you still like the big bang theory, though, I would say revise it to an isolate bang or bangs. I do not particularly like any of the bang ideas, but it is what it is, topically

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, I'm not a bang proponent in the first place.

It doesn't really mean much to state you aren't a proponent of a theory you don't understand. Your vague references to "alternatives" that have at least as many problems you advice one supports for reasons you don't say over the big bang theory for reasons you don't say based on criticisms of the physics of the theory you can't even explain let alone describe don't really make for much of a critique. It's like your dismissal of measure theory and analysis with 1+1=2 and a reference to some proof you were developing about infinities which can't be accurate. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of a theory with someone who doesn't bother to take the effort to understand it.

 

[Thief]

No, I'm not a bang proponent in the first place. If you still like the big bang theory, though, I would say revise it to an isolate bang or bangs. I do not particularly like any of the bang ideas, but it is what it is, topically

I lean to the singularity as a starting 'point'.
kinda grew up with it, like so many my age.....
and the theories that have 'popped' into existence in recent decades are entertaining.....but....

everything had to begin....'somewhere....'some how'....
and I prefer to say....Spirit first.

 

[Desert Snake]

I lean to the singularity as a starting 'point'.
kinda grew up with it, like so many my age.....
and the theories that have 'popped' into existence in recent decades are entertaining.....but....

everything had to begin....'somewhere....'some how'....
and I prefer to say....Spirit first.

I agree. /With the Spirit first part. The ''singularity'', dunno, I think you might be limiting yourself to a theory that has issues, /if you like the big bang

 

[leibowde84]

Am I supposed to adhere to your lack of logical inference? No, I do not think so.

What inference specifically are you referring to?

 

[leibowde84]

I agree. /With the Spirit first part. The ''singularity'', dunno, I think you might be limiting yourself to a theory that has issues, /if you like the big bang

What are the issues with the Big Bang?