How could first big-bang explode?

[Ben Dhyan]

No, because there is no reason to assume that it was a "who", and nor is there reason to assume "nothing" needs to be "created" in the first place.

But if there was nothing in the first place....the question is not "who", not even "what", but how did this "nothing" that you say was not a creation, create the universe?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But if there was nothing in the first place....the question is not "who", not even "what", but how did this "nothing" create the universe?

Well, firstly, we don't know that "nothing" preceded the Universe or not (or if "preceding the Universe" is even a viable concept), secondly, we have no reason to assume the universe was necessarily created out of this state or if, in some capacity, it had always existed. We're not dealing with an event or period of time that strictly adheres to the physical laws of the Universe as we currently understand them. We are dealing with an event which possibly precedes the origin of all known physical laws and even time itself. We have very little to go on currently (although, of course, it is being worked on). The best option when faced with such an unknown is simply to withhold assumptions until we find out more.

 

[Altfish]

Oh another one liner debater..

Please explain your credible understanding of the cosmic existence in the context of concepts such as eternity and infinity on the one hand, and concepts such as beginnings and endings of Cosmic material forms on the other

Must admit, I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
Perhaps if you gave your explanation for the same question only in relation to 'god' then I can understand what you are wanting from me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, firstly, we don't know that "nothing" preceded the Universe or not (or if "preceding the Universe" is even a viable concept), secondly, we have no reason to assume the universe was necessarily created out of this state or if, in some capacity, it had always existed. We're not dealing with an event or period of time that strictly adheres to the physical laws of the Universe as we currently understand them. We are dealing with an event which possibly precedes the origin of all known physical laws and even time itself. We have very little to go on currently (although, of course, it is being worked on). The best option when faced with such an unknown is simply to withhold assumptions until we find out more.

You haven't been following....we are talking about big theory of a nothing that is supposed to exist now outside the bubble of the big bang expansion..... If the big bang is expanding, not into 3D space as we understand it, but into nothingness....a nothing that has no spacial dimensions...then it follows logically that this 'absolute nothing' was that from which the big bang originated.

And also...according to this theory...right now as we speak...at the universal expansion bubble perimeter wall, infinite energy density is meeting nothing....please explain?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You haven't been following....we are talking about big theory of a nothing that is supposed to exist now outside the bubble of the big bang expansion..... If the big bang is expanding, not into 3D space as we understand it, but into nothingness....a nothing that has no spacial dimensions...then it follows logically that this 'absolute nothing' was that from which the big bang originated.

Not necessarily. If the big bang is all there is, there's no reason to assume that its expansion from a single point must have been preceded by nothing. "Nothing" is not a space into which the big bang expanded, like a balloon inflating in an empty room - nothing literally in this case means nothing. There is nothing but the balloon. So there's no sense in saying that "nothingness" somehow preceded in the space in which the balloon then "appeared".

And also...according to this theory...right now as we speak...at the universal expansion bubble perimeter wall, infinite energy density is meeting nothing....please explain?

For that, I would suggest you find a decent physicist/cosmologist. I'm not sure where they hang out, though. Star Trek conventions?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Must admit, I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
Perhaps if you gave your explanation for the same question only in relation to 'god' then I can understand what you are wanting from me.

The concept of God, as I understand it, is meant to represent the underlying unity of Cosmic existence....as does the concept of Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, etc.... As such, it is infinite and eternal in nature...but the mortal mind functions on the basis of conceptual thinking which is finite, thus in natural anthropocentric fashion, mortals imagine that the Cosmos at large is as constrained to mortal limitations like birth and death, creation and destruction, beginning and ending, as human are. In fact, only Cosmic forms are limited by these constraints...the Cosmos at large is birthless and deathless....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not necessarily. If the big bang is all there is, there's no reason to assume that its expansion from a single point must have been preceded by nothing. "Nothing" is not a space into which the big bang expanded - like a balloon inflating in an empty room - nothing literally in this case means nothing. There is nothing but the balloon. So there's no sense in saying that "nothingness" somehow preceded in the space in which the balloon then "appeared".

For that, I would suggest you find a decent physicist/cosmologist. I'm not sure where they hang out, though. Star Trek conventions?

Seriously...it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion with the like of people at your level of understanding. I know it may not go down with you to be told a home truth...but at the moment you are out of your league....I am not intending to sound condescending...but my advice is for you to humbly get out and live a little and get back to us in a decade or two...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Seriously...it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion with the like of people at your level of understanding.

Whoa, whoah, whoah! Where did that come from?? I thought we were having a perfectly respectful and reasonable discussion?!

I know it may not go down with you to be told a home truth...but at the moment you are out of your league....I am not intending to sound condescending...

Well, you're obviously doing a bang-up job of that.

but my advice is for you to humbly get out and live a little and get back to us in a decade or two...

Are you serious? Where exactly did this attitude come from? If you're just going to dismiss, condescend and insult anyone who attempts to address your questions, why are you even asking questions to begin with? Debate respectfully or not at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whoa, whoah, whoah! Where did that come from?? I thought we were having a perfectly respectful and reasonable discussion?!

Well, you're obviously doing a bang-up job of that.

Are you serious? Where exactly did this attitude come from? If you're just going to dismiss, condescend and insult anyone who attempts to address your questions, why are you even asking questions to begin with? Debate respectfully or not at all.

Sorry...because you did not seem to be addressing my points logically, rather skirting the issue of the nothingness that supposed exists, by means of implying my points are assuming the nothing is in the context of time in order to diss it because it is actually outside of time....

So..a straight answer please...the non 3D nothingness that big bang says is at the edge of the big bang bubble/balloon expansion wall as we speak...is this the same 3D nothingness from which emanated the big bang expansion?

...late here...c u later...

 

[Altfish]

The concept of God, as I understand it, is meant to represent the underlying unity of Cosmic existence....as does the concept of Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, etc.... As such, it is infinite and eternal in nature...but the mortal mind functions on the basis of conceptual thinking which is finite, thus in natural anthropocentric fashion, mortals imagine that the Cosmos at large is as constrained to mortal limitations like birth and death, creation and destruction, beginning and ending, as human are. In fact, only Cosmic forms are limited by these constraints...the Cosmos at large is birthless and deathless....

Could you put that into plain English please? That reads like something William Lane Craig would have said.

What does "...the underlying unity of Cosmic existence" mean?
"...natural anthropocentric fashion..." I know what 'anthropocentric' means but what does that phrase mean?
"the Cosmos at large is birthless and deathless" - is it, how do we know?

 

[Thief]

Was it deafening?
I mean, did you lose your hearing for a while afterwords?
I wouldn't know as I was not there.
Perhaps you could shed some light as an eyewitness?

My bad......a really bad typo.
I have made correction with clarity.....I hope.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry...because you did not seem to be addressing my points logically, rather skirting the issue of the nothingness that supposed exists, by means of implying my points are assuming the nothing is in the context of time in order to diss it because it is actually outside of time....

In that last post, I said nothing whatsoever about time. You said that it followed logically that because the big bang is expanding "into" nothing, that "'absolute nothing' was that from which the big bang originated".

All I explained was that this isn't necessarily true as per the "nature" of nothing. "Nothing" is not a space that something can "expand into" like a balloon inflating in an empty room. It is literally nothing. The universe is expanding, but it not expanding "into" nothing, it is simply expanding. There is nothing outside of the Universe for it to expand "into", so there was not necessarily any state that somehow preceded the existence of the Universe in any form. How is that not a logical addressing of your points or a skirting of the issue? It is a direct, plain-English response to your assertion that "'absolute nothing' was that from which the big bang originated".

So..a straight answer please...the non 3D nothingness that big bang says is at the edge of the big bang bubble/balloon expansion wall as we speak...is this the same 3D nothingness from which emanated the big bang expansion?

See above. The Universe isn't "expanding into" nothingness, and I have no basis on which to assert therefore that this "nothingness" preceded the big bang (if, indeed, anything did precede the big bang). Again, you appear to be viewing "nothing" as comparative to "emptiness", like the empty space inside a room being filled by an inflating balloon. But emptiness is not nothing. I'm not sure I can adequately communicate the concept effectively in words, but it is more useful not to think of the Universe as expanding "into" something, but merely the Universe expanding. Again, I am not a physicist or a cosmologist so my understanding of these subjects can very generously be described as dramatic oversimplifications, but I'm trying the best I can to explain what little I understand.

 

[Ouroboros]

The universe is actually very weird. It's weird at the cosmological scale and even weirder at the sub-atomic scale. Sunday school ideas like "God did it" simply aren't weird enough to be credible. These ideas stem from our human experience at the everyday level, but the rules we take for granted break down at the cosmological and sub-atomic levels.

Agree. We don't understand how the universe works, and what lies beyond our physical world (wherever a "beyond" would be or the line could be drawn between our universe and what's not) is, has to be beyond our ability to comprehend. We don't have n-dimension senses, which means we can't discern subjectively or have direct experience of those things.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well true in the context of present physical scientific understanding....and I must admit to being surprised that Ouroboros thinks religious folk have the Sunday school view of a dualistic God...

??? This thread is presented as such. It's actually presented as a Sunday school view of a scientific theory.

All I was saying was that the Big Bang theory states that space expanded into nothing. Look it up. That's what the theory says.

And, in a Sunday school, people believe in the external, separate, monotheistic and dualistic God. That's the most common one. You don't. But the OP of this thread... that might be a different issue.

Anyway, I do agree with you. A panentheistic God fits the bill. I have no problem with that. Perhaps (I have to go back and check) I didn't specify in my response that I was addressing the monotheistic, external God image. I did consider mentioning pantheism/panenthism but decided not to, for whatever reason. The pan-God, constantly in change, I have no problem with. The separate God that creates a universe from nothing, however, is a problem, since it also requires a "nothing" to create in.

--edit

Let me put it this way. I consider the pan/en/theistic God to be the best answer, but ... I'm told I just do wordplay when I use the term "God" for any pantheistic view, so I choose not to. It's just a game of words to some. It's better if I don't use it.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, the real issue is who created "nothing" to allow big-bang to expand fast or explode.
Is it so?

Regards

The problem is that "nothing" is a concept that we can't understand with our human mind, regardless if it's the Big Bang nothing or a creator God nothing.

Perhaps the real answer is: No one created Nothing, so Something could come real.

 

[Ouroboros]

Comment on Post # 39 above.

Singularity

So it is ONE creating "nothing" to start with.
Is it?

Regards

It's One. But not "Creating". Nothing is just nothing. All something comes from something else. We are part of that something. And that something was, is, and will always be The One. We are part of The One. This world is part of The One. There never was a specific beginning of The One. The only beginning we can see, is the beginning of our specific time line. It's not creating, but becoming. God, us, the world, all of it, is constantly becoming.

--edit

Dang. I did it anyway. I brought in my own personal view of what God is, and my view of pantheism... really tried not to.

 

[metis]

It's One. But not "Creating". Nothing is just nothing. All something comes from something else. We are part of that something. And that something was, is, and will always be The One. We are part of The One. This world is part of The One. There never was a specific beginning of The One. The only beginning we can see, is the beginning of our specific time line. It's not creating, but becoming. God, us, the world, all of it, is constantly becoming.

--edit

Dang. I did it anyway. I brought in my own personal view of what God is, and my view of pantheism... really tried not to.

I forgive you.

 

[viole]

Isn't the Big Bang something of a misnomer? I thought it was a rapid expansion of matter from a single point in space.

Well, no. There was no space either, and therefore no meaningful point in space. Asking where the BB happened is as absurd as asking when it happened.

Btw, we can only say that our VISIBLE universe "had" a small extension. The whole Universe could be very well infinite, and "always" been like that. This is at lesst what inflationary theory suggests.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

No big, no bang; I'm just going to worry to worry about what toppings I'm getting on my pizza. It's more real.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Due to useful information given by some of our friends in the above posts, I would like to amend the OP as below.
(The organisers of this forum are requested to amend the OP, if possible.)

How could the first big-bang expand?

There must be some expanse for it to expand. How did this expanse come into existence?
Regard

Same manner a lack of expanse came into existence.