How did the Big Bang happen?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, sort of. Science seeks evidence-based, natural explanations for what we see in nature. That means, by definition, that supernatural ideas, or ideas for which there is no objective evidence, are outside science.

But I think you should be careful in making statements like science "rules out" God. Science has no opinion on God, any more than it does on politics or music. You do not have to be an atheist to be a scientist. Plenty of scientists have always been, and continue to be, religious believers.

Finally, to make the point again that I have done so often before, please do not talk of "proof" in science. Science never deals in proof of anything.

In your understanding of science. And I agree with you. But if you checked among all those with a positive view of science, some would claim that science is about truth and proof. And voila, we are in philosophy of science.

 

[exchemist]

In your understanding of science. And I agree with you. But if you checked among all those with a positive view of science, some would claim that science is about truth and proof. And voila, we are in philosophy of science.

No. Nobody who understands the philosophy of science would claim it deals in proofs. This is basic, cf. Karl Popper, and to my knowledge nobody has challenged his view on that issue.

 

[Valjean]

Before this universe expanded, what was here before? If there is empty space, that means something was here before our current universe.( like a universe before this one)

Maybe universe is reincarnating?

Silly lion. You're trying to apply commonsense and everyday experience to reality. That'll never work.
"Before" assumes time. Time began with the expansion. Before this time there was no time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Nobody who understands the philosophy of science would claim it deals in proofs. This is basic, cf. Karl Popper, and to my knowledge nobody has challenged his view on that issue.

Well, this is the Internet. I trust that you are a scientist, but you are not the only scientist, I have come across and Popper is not the only game in town.

 

[Valjean]

It is not confusing at all we just look at "reality" from two different P.O.W that's all

Exactly! One correct, one imaginary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly! One correct, one imaginary.

Justified reasoning for that yours is correct with logic and non fallacies and what not. Go...

 

[HonestJoe]

No I do not need to know the science behind big bang theory I don't believe the science theory to be true. I just want science believers to realize that just because they can not see a God does not mean it is not there. What this OP is all about

Then why is the title of the thread "How did the Big Bang happen?" and not "Just because you can not see a God does not mean it is not there"?

Sure, not seeing God doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though equally, seeing a "gap" doesn't mean God must exist to fill it. Even if it couldn't (currently) be explained how the Big Bang was triggered, that wouldn't be any kind of evidence for the existence of a sentient creator being, let alone the very specifically defined God you're thinking of.

I'm sure it can be explained at least how the Big Bang could have been triggered in the material out there I described but given that you're automatically dismissing anything that doesn't say "God did it!", I don't see the relevance in you bringing it up.

 

[ratiocinator]

The theoretical physics hypotheses beyond a certain point back in time are not supported by evidence. That is why it is theoretical physics. The hypotheses are not supported by evidence and none of them has been tested, because they can't be tested based on current abilities.

Every theory (which in science terminology, is well tested) starts life an a hypothesis - something that is potentially (at least in principle) testable.

The big bang theory has been subject to a number of observational tests but can't take us further back in time than when some hypothesis that unites general relativity and quantum field theory would be required. At that point, we only have hypotheses that are very difficult to test.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why is the title of the thread "How did the Big Bang happen?" and not "Just because you can not see a God does not mean it is not there"?

Sure, not seeing God doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though equally, seeing a "gap" doesn't mean God must exist to fill it. Even if it couldn't (currently) be explained how the Big Bang was triggered, that wouldn't be any kind of evidence for the existence of a sentient creator being, let alone the very specifically defined God you're thinking of.

I'm sure it can be explained at least how the Big Bang could have been triggered in the material out there I described but given that you're automatically dismissing anything that doesn't say "God did it!", I don't see the relevance in you bringing it up.

It is from my POW not this that is important. It ends in as it has already happened in this thread:
Someone: My world view is correct and yours isn't.

 

[chinu]

I'm sure it can be explained at least how the Big Bang could have been triggered in the material out there I described but given that you're automatically dismissing anything that doesn't say "God did it!", I don't see the relevance in you bringing it up.

It can't be explained because big-bang is still banging, or say is currently in progress. To explain one need to wait at least until banging gets finish

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every theory (which in science terminology, is well tested) starts life an a hypothesis - something that is potentially (at least in principle) testable.

The big bang theory has been subject to a number of observational tests but can't take us further back in time than when some hypothesis that unites general relativity and quantum field theory would be required. At that point, we only have hypotheses that are very difficult to test.

And some of those in theoretical physics requires that you in effect test from outside the universe. Now you can called in principle possible and thus treat these hypotheses as valid. But that to me is absurd, because then God is a valid. God is in principle possible, therefore God is valid.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It can't be explained because big-bang is still banging, or say is currently in progress. To explain one nee to wait at least until banging gets finish

That's a big bang.....

 

[chinu]

That's a big bang.....

That's big banging

 

[ratiocinator]

And some of those in theoretical physics requires that you in effect test from outside the universe.

It's certainly a challenge with these hypotheses is to make testable predictions, which is often very hard but not, in principle, impossible.

Now you can called in principle possible and thus treat these hypotheses as valid.

What do you mean by 'valid'? There are a number of hypotheses regarding the unification of general relativity and quantum field theory, they are only considered 'valid' in the sense that they build upon what we already know (tested theories) and are self-consistent. Obviously most of them will turn out to be wrong.

But that to me is absurd, because then God is a valid. God is in principle possible, therefore God is valid.

Quite apart from the fact that the unqualified word "God" is basically meaningless (there are way too many concepts that are labelled as "God" for the word by itself to be meaningful), I know of no interpretation that would make it based on what has already been tested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's certainly a challenge with these hypotheses is to make testable predictions, which is often very hard but not, in principle, impossible.



What do you mean by 'valid'? There are a number of hypotheses regarding the unification of general relativity and quantum field theory, they are only considered 'valid' in the sense that they build upon what we already know (tested theories) and are self-consistent. Obviously most of them will turn out to be wrong.
...

Explain how you will observe a singularity in regards to the Big Bang. As for wrong, It might be that some of claims in theoretical physics are in practice unknowable for humans. And only in principle knowable by an entity which is like God.

 

[Heyo]

If we look at the Big Bang theory. ( not the Tv series)
Most of the science community say everything started with the bang.

Everything we can see. I.e. our space-time.

But what made it go Bang? If there is no creator or God or intelligent being that put it in motion.

How can there be lightning if there is not a Zeus to throw it?
How can the sun move across the sky when there is no Apollo to drag it?
How often have people assumed a sapient being to be responsible for something that later found a natural explanation?

If there was nothing before the big bang. What made it go bang?
What was in the space we today know as the universe?

Can there be a nothing or a void if there was nothing there before?

Very hard to answer, possibly impossible. There is no reason that it couldn't be a creator, only very improbable. (See above. Whenever we looked, there never was a creator.) But the alternatives are also not very convincing.
And thinking about it seems to always lead to a paradox when you don't stop thinking at a point convenient to your world view.

 

[blü 2]

But what made it go Bang? If there is no creator or God or intelligent being that put it in motion.
If there was nothing before the big bang. What made it go bang?

If, as is thought, the Big Bang was as close to a pure singularity as physics allows. then one consequence is that on our present knowledge and understanding there is no way of obtaining information about anything that happened before it.

But to my mind mass-energy must have pre-existed the Big Bang, since mass-energy appears to have been the entire contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero. The idea of mass-energy coming into being ex nihilo is so utterly, so fathomlessly inexplicable that it must be at the bottom of any list of possibilities.

What was in the space we today know as the universe?

I like the idea that everything in our universe is either mass-energy or a property or effect of mass-energy, necessarily including the dimensions. If that's right then nothing would stop us hypothesizing that a space-time pre-existed our universe.

One question I leave open is what could be the spatial relationship between that prior universe and ours; indeed, whether any meaning can be attached to the idea of a space between space-times. If that's right, a single überverse would seem necessary, of which our universe would simply be one enclosed part.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If, as is thought, the Big Bang was as close to a pure singularity as physics allows. then one consequence is that on our present knowledge and understanding there is no way of obtaining information about anything that happened before it.

But to my mind mass-energy must have pre-existed the Big Bang, since mass-energy appears to have been the entire contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero. The idea of mass-energy coming into being ex nihilo is so utterly, so fathomlessly inexplicable that it must be at the bottom of any list of possibilities.
I like the idea that everything in our universe is either mass-energy or a property or effect of mass-energy, necessarily including the dimensions. If that's right then nothing would stop us hypothesizing that a space-time pre-existed our universe.

One question I leave open is what could be the spatial relationship between that prior universe and ours; indeed, whether any meaning can be attached to the idea of a space between space-times.

Yeah, but all that you like here, is not true, because you have no evidence as per correspondence. It is imaginary and in effect no different than a belief in God, so you are deluded*, just like people, who believe in God. *Deluded as in common usage on this forum.

 

[ratiocinator]

Explain how you will observe a singularity in regards to the Big Bang.

It's not about observing it (and a literal singularity is ruled out by many of the hypotheses) it's about having a tested theoretical framework that would allow us to extrapolate back and (perhaps) make testable predictions about consequences that might be observable today.

As for wrong, It might be that some of claims in theoretical physics are in practice unknowable for humans.

It's possible that there are no means available to us to find the answers to some questions, yes.

And only in principle knowable by an entity which is like God.

Making up a being that would know the answers if it existed, gets us where, exactly?

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but all that you like here, is not true, because you have no evidence as per correspondence. It is imaginary and in effect no different than a belief in God, so you are deluded*, just like people, who believe in God. *Deluded as in common usage on this forum.

No, old friend, I do NOT believe in my hypotheses ─ which I've clearly labelled 'hypotheses' ─ in any way that equates to a belief in God. I defend my speculations only by observing that they're not ruled out by what we know.

Whereas, at this date, a real God is indeed ruled out by what we know.
1