How did nothing exist at once?

[Searching4God]

When you get to the roots of physics, how do you get it without a push? This doesn’t seem so complicated. Why is there this two sides to the coin debate? How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism? Once nothing existed within absolute nothingness? Time was or wasn’t eternal? An energy formed within the inside nothing? It morphed into the potential for space and on the first try, with one in 1.5 trillion odds, worked perfectly? The math on the Bang is just as unbelievable as G-d? Come on. Please explain where the universe is and how nothing existed at once. Mods please move this if it isn’t the right place. Ty.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy is eternal.

 

[Polymath257]

When you get to the roots of physics, how do you get it without a push? This doesn’t seem so complicated. Why is there this two sides to the coin debate? How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism? Once nothing existed within absolute nothingness? Time was or wasn’t eternal? An energy formed within the inside nothing? It morphed into the potential for space and on the first try, with one in 1.5 trillion odds, worked perfectly? The math on the Bang is just as unbelievable as G-d? Come on. Please explain where the universe is and how nothing existed at once. Mods please move this if it isn’t the right place. Ty.

I don't know where you get those odds, but it certainly isn't from any scientific treatment I have seen.

So, I am going to describe the *standard* Big Bang scenario. There are other variants that have been proposed, but this is the basic model most cosmologists use.

First, time is part of the universe. In fact, the BB model takes the universe to be *all* of space and *all* of time.

Second, time itself started at the Big Bang. So there was literally no 'before the Big Bang'.

This is different than saying there was 'nothing' before. There was no 'before' at all: time *began* at the BB. So, in the standard BB model, time is NOT 'eternal'.

Third, by considering the universe throughout *both* space and time, the notion of causality is eliminated: causes require time. So the notion of a cause only makes sense *within the universe*.

So, no the idea is NOT that there was 'nothing' in 'absolute nothingness' and that 'energy' did anything. That is a *complete* misunderstanding of what the model says.

Fourth, no 'push' is required. Once again, you have to consider all of space and all of time as a single geometric entity. And that entity simply exists. Causality and time only exist *inside* of it.

Just to let you know: there are a LOT of really, really bad popular treatments of the Big Bang scenario. Most simply don't help in understanding what the actual model says or discuss the evidence we have for that model. If you want to discuss evidence, I can do that as well.

Fifth: it is quite possible the model is wrong, even likely. But the solution isn't to assume some intelligence. The solution is to follow the evidence and see where it leads us.

 

[Polymath257]

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy is eternal.

Actually, no it doesn't. Especially in the case where time is not.

Also, in general relativity, that first law has to be modified to take into consideration spacetime curvature.

 

[Tim Kuepfer]

Fifth: it is quite possible the model is wrong, even likely. But the solution isn't to assume some intelligence. The solution is to follow the evidence and see where it leads us.

Do you think that it is possible that there is some "intelligent cause"? This seems to be the best explanation for the universe when you look at the evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think that it is possible that there is some "intelligent cause"? This seems to be the best explanation for the universe when you look at the evidence.

I don't see it as an explanation at all. To be an explanation would require something to be different if, in this case, there was no intelligence versus if there is. As far as I can see, the universe would be exactly the same either way. At *most* it is pointing to something we know nothing about and saying nothing else. At worst, it is simply saying not to think about it any further. Both are far from being 'explanations'.

But is it *possible* there was an 'intelligent cause'? Sure. it is *possible* that some race of hyper-dimensional beings have learned how to construct universes and ours was one of them. It is also possible that our universe was a high school project that was subsequently forgotten about.

But to assume that to be the case without evidence seems silly.

 

[ChristineM]

When you get to the roots of physics, how do you get it without a push? This doesn’t seem so complicated. Why is there this two sides to the coin debate? How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism? Once nothing existed within absolute nothingness? Time was or wasn’t eternal? An energy formed within the inside nothing? It morphed into the potential for space and on the first try, with one in 1.5 trillion odds, worked perfectly? The math on the Bang is just as unbelievable as G-d? Come on. Please explain where the universe is and how nothing existed at once. Mods please move this if it isn’t the right place. Ty.

The Bb has nothing to do with atheism. All Atheism is the disbileaf in gods... Nothing more, nothing less

Here is a paper explaining one possible scenario of how something formed from nothing.

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

However that is just one hypothesis, there are many more, most do not say that the BB is the result of nothing

 

[Tim Kuepfer]

If I see an automobile driving down the road am I silly to think that there was an intelligent mind behind its creation? It is possible. In fact, it is very likely.
If there was no intelligence behind its creation I certainly wouldn't expect it to be so finely tuned.

 

[Polymath257]

The Bb has nothing to do with atheism. All Atheism is the disbileaf in gods... Nothing more, nothing less

Here is a paper explaining one possible scenario of how something formed from nothing.

However that is just one hypothesis, there are many more, most do not say that the BB is the result of nothing

I'm always slightly allergic to the 'something from nothing' papers. At some level, they always seem to be false advertising because they always assumes that the 'nothing' obeys physical laws and has a corresponding wave function.

Which may well be a minimal set of assumptions, but doesn't answer the basic question of why there is anything at all (physical laws and wave functions in this case).

 

[Polymath257]

If I see an automobile driving down the road am I silly to think that there was an intelligent mind behind its creation? It is possible. In fact, it is very likely.
If there was no intelligence behind its creation I certainly wouldn't expect it to be so finely tuned.

Yes, if you see an automobile, which we know are designed and created by humans, it is natural to assume that automobile was designed and created by humans.

On the other hand, if you see a tree in a forest, you do not automatically assume it was intelligently planted by someone.

If you see a waterfall, you don't assume that it was created by someone.

In fact, the types of things you *would* assume an intelligent mind for are *exactly* those things where we know or suspect humans were involved.

Anything off of the Earth, for example, would not be in the category of 'intelligent minds assumed', In fact, quite the opposite.

The notion of 'fine tuning' assumes that certain constants in our universe *can* be different (so the specific values were selected somehow) and that there is no natural process driving them to the values they have. Given our current state of ignorance, those are tremendous assumptions.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm always slightly allergic to the 'something from nothing' papers. At some level, they always seem to be false advertising because they always assumes that the 'nothing' obeys physical laws and has a corresponding wave function.

Which may well be a minimal set of assumptions, but doesn't answer the basic question of why there is anything at all (physical laws and wave functions in this case).

I agree, to a large extent, its not the scenario i favour. i drop it in to help explain that the, something cannot come from nothing claim has its opposition

 

[Tim Kuepfer]

Yes, if you see an automobile, which we know are designed and created by humans, it is natural to assume that automobile was designed and created by humans.

So if I see an incredible, mind-blowing, finely tuned universe, I am not illogical in thinking that there is an intelligent mind behind its cause. Of course, it would be illogical to think that a human created it because no human has that ability.

You could say that the universe is finely tuned because of physical necessity, chance, or intelligent design. Intelligent design is just much more probable.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Fine tuned for what?

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, no it doesn't. Especially in the case where time is not.

Also, in general relativity, that first law has to be modified to take into consideration spacetime curvature.

I'll add that the 1st Law applies based upon our experience.
Universes starting or ending....no chance to observe yet.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When you get to the roots of physics, how do you get it without a push? This doesn’t seem so complicated. Why is there this two sides to the coin debate? How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism? Once nothing existed within absolute nothingness? Time was or wasn’t eternal? An energy's formed within the inside nothing? It morphed into the potential for space and on the first try, with one in 1.5 trillion odds, worked perfectly? The math on the Bang is just as unbelievable as G-d? Come on. Please explain where the universe is and how nothing existed at once. Mods please move this if it isn’t the right place. Ty.

Let's try it this way, take a ruler and keep dividing the measurements into smaller and smaller units. Let us know when you reach the end. ;0)

That's why I think enternalism/infinity is possible. Or to put it another way, potential, as per the scientific definition, is infinite.

Not to mention what we think is nothing may actually be just too small for us to detect. I think the micro universe is just as infinite as the macro universe.

While the whole thing is hard to wrap your head around, there are some ways to grasp the infinite.

Personally I think we live in a continuum.

 

[ChristineM]

I'll add that the 1st Law applies based upon our experience.
Universes starting or ending....no chance to observe yet.

And i will add that it did not exist at the moment of the BB so is irrelevant to how the universe began

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When you get to the roots of physics, how do you get it without a push? This doesn’t seem so complicated.

How about the easy answer: "I don't know." Now... please explain how you DO know.

How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism?

Why do you feel that an atheist needs to know this, or even answer this question? Is an atheist any less of an atheist if he has no explanation for how the universe began? The correct answer is "no." He is no less an atheist. He still doesn't believe the completely unsupportable version of the story that starts with "God." Demonstrate to me how you know that God is at the root of the start of the universe and then we'll talk. Until you have such information, I am not going to accept any claim you have about it.

 

[Windwalker]

How does the Big Bang even work according to atheism?

I'm not exactly sure why we are asking atheism about science? Is atheism a branch of the sciences now? What exactly is it they are studying?

Once nothing existed within absolute nothingness?

That sentence makes no sense. How can nothing exist? If it has existence, is is a something, not a nothing. Nothing cannot exist. It is not even an it, but non-it, or a non-existent non-it.

An energy formed within the inside nothing? It morphed into the potential for space and on the first try, with one in 1.5 trillion odds, worked perfectly?

No actually, it did not morph into the potential space. It created space itself. And "worked perfectly", I'm not sure where you get that from, nor with the odds you came up with.

What evolved, is what evolved. If you want to call all that "planned and executed", you are doing so purely out of an assumption you and everything is exactly what it was intended to be from the beginning. That of course, does not fit what we see in nature, nor in our individual lives. Things become what we are, we become what we are, through a series of trial and error and adaptation. It's all of nature works. Nothing comes out of the box whole.

The math on the Bang is just as unbelievable as G-d?

Are you a theoretical physicist and find inconsistencies in the math? Have you found areas where your colleagues are in error? Just curious.

And belief in God really has nothing to do with the science behind the Big Bang. What is not believable, is not the idea of God, but the idea that a literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation story is factual history. That is not only ridiculous science, is really awful theology too! Not all believers in God are ignorant about both scriptures and science in those ways. They can read the Bible and accept science as both ways to understand God.

Come on. Please explain where the universe is and how nothing existed at once. Mods please move this if it isn’t the right place. Ty.

Where the universe is, is obvious. You're in it. You are it. We all are it. And nothing cannot exist. It has no reality. Only existence does.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Goddidit. But which God?

Personally, I think it was Zeus.

 

[PureX]

How did nothing exist at once?

How could it exist any other way?