• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok, then can it be asked if there was an initial start to an oscillating universe, or is it an eternal process?
I think that the current answer is "We don't know yet". Though I could be wrong. There are those that say the Big Bang was the start of everything, including time, there are others that say "not so fast".
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.
It's not expanding into anything. It's simply expanding.

Let me give a two dimensional analogy. Imagine drawing little galaxies on a balloon, and then blowing up the balloon. The galaxy pictures would get farther and farther apart, but they really arent "going" anywhere -- they are still right on the same balloon they always were. It's just that the space they exist on is expanding.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes I understand and appreciate your position that the universe is expanding into nothing.

Well, it's not even an accurate description. But here again, we bump into our human biases. Our words exist to describe the world that we live in: medium sized objects, travelling at medium speeds in an environment governed by medium gravity.

And the only word we have here for "nothing", doesn't accuratly describe it. We simply do not have the vocabulary to describe things that are SO FAR out of our world.

You see, when we say "it expands into nothing", then we are invoking "nothing" as if it is a something.
While, what I rather mean is that "it's not even nothing".

The very phrase "it expands into... anything" is already something that doesn't make sense.
There is no "into". It just expands. Period.


I find it hard to explain because, again, our "temporal" words simply fall short.

And btw, according to your understanding, did the universe arise from nothing in the first instance or was there some sort of singularity already in existence?

I don't know.
And here again, we have that invocation of "nothing" as if it is a "something".

This is why physicist spend so much time trying to define what they really mean by "nothing".
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Well, it's not even an accurate description. But here again, we bump into our human biases. Our words exist to describe the world that we live in: medium sized objects, travelling at medium speeds in an environment governed by medium gravity.

And the only word we have here for "nothing", doesn't accuratly describe it. We simply do not have the vocabulary to describe things that are SO FAR out of our world.

You see, when we say "it expands into nothing", then we are invoking "nothing" as if it is a something.
While, what I rather mean is that "it's not even nothing".

The very phrase "it expands into... anything" is already something that doesn't make sense.
There is no "into". It just expands. Period.

I find it hard to explain because, again, our "temporal" words simply fall short.

I don't know.
And here again, we have that invocation of "nothing" as if it is a "something".

This is why physicist spend so much time trying to define what they really mean by "nothing".
I understand what nothing means, nothing does not exist! Did the universe arise from nothing? Did the universe come into existence from nonexistence? Do you have a problem with my understanding of nothing?

However in any event TagliatelliMonster, the question has now been addressed by a number of people and I understand the different positions raised by members. Whatever your answer, I would guess someone has already provided a similar one. I do however appreciate your good intention to help, so please do not hesitate to respond if you feel like it.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
It's not expanding into anything. It's simply expanding.

Let me give a two dimensional analogy. Imagine drawing little galaxies on a balloon, and then blowing up the balloon. The galaxy pictures would get farther and farther apart, but they really arent "going" anywhere -- they are still right on the same balloon they always were. It's just that the space they exist on is expanding.
Thank you ndigoChild5559.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread that has helped to provide me with a better appreciation and understanding of the various views wrt the manifestation of the universe. Please feel free to continue to post here but for me, I feel satisfied to reflect awhile on what you all have contributed.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
@Native said, "Does human made equations have anything to do with the factual creation in the Universe?"
@Native, is there a factual universe?
Ok, so the next question is, did the universe arise from nothing?
IMHO, possible; if existence and non-existence are phases. My book says that. Any other explanation, whether God is eternal or the universe is eternal, will have problems in proving that. That is the only way out, and perhaps that is the reason why the RigVedic bard (Parameshthi Prajapati) mentioned that 3000 years ago.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

@Polymath257 said, "if you think of the universe being ALL of spacetime, then it did NOT 'arise'. It just is." (Aup adds: "that way")
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
@Polymath257
The idea of a Big Bang is really pure speculative nonsense.
It´s assumed beginning takes place somewhere in the Universe and expands in the Universe - which doesn´t say anything other that there is an Universe.
Polymath257 said:
No, it does not. Have you actually studied the equations?

Native said:
Equations? Does human made equations have anything to do with the factual creation in the Universe?
You made a claim about what the Big Bang models says. The actual model is a mathematical model and is written in equations. Those equations do not say what you claimed they say.
All I claimed was the Universe to have started in the Universe and that mathematical equations have nothing to do with the factual creation.

OK well, what does the equations say, then?
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
See, when we say that stuff in the universe is "moving away from us", that isn't really a physically accurate description.
It's not that some galaxy is travelling in the opposite direction. It's more like that due to the expansion of space-time, the space between us and the galaxy is growing bigger.
I´m familar with this description.
[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6873192, member: 65929"The expansion of space-time is what creates space. By expanding it.

Where is the circularity?[/QUOTE]
You´re really saying that the expansion of space (creates) expands the space = a circular argument. But such arguments is expected in a theory which cannot be explained causally.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I´m familar with this description.
[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6873192, member: 65929"The expansion of space-time is what creates space. By expanding it.

Where is the circularity?
You´re really saying that the expansion of space (creates) expands the space = a circular argument.[/QUOTE]
It is still completely unclear to me how that is supposedly circular.
I clarified what I meant, and you even quoted that clarification in the very post I'm responding to now.

So what's the problem?
What is referred to as the expansion of space-time, IS what creates "space". The space between 2 points in the universe grows larger. ie, more space is being created.

That IS what the expansion of space-time is.


Again, where is the "circular" part? What is even the argument that is supposedly circular??
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I understand what nothing means, nothing does not exist! Did the universe arise from nothing? Did the universe come into existence from nonexistence?

We don't know.
If the universe is all that exists, and if the universe at some point did not exist... then by definition it came into existence from non-existence. Regardless of how it originated (be it a natural process or a deity saying "abracadabra" followed by POOF, a universe).

If the universe is NOT all that exists (like for example in a multi-verse) and if at some point the universe did NOT exist, then the universe came from something else.


But here, we once again bump into an interesting linguistic problem. Or is it really "linguistic"?
The universe is the space-time continuum. This means that space AND time are integral parts of the universe.

Meaning, if you remove the universe from existence, then you also remove space AND time.
If time doesn't exist..... then what does it even mean to say "if at some point in time the universe did not exist"? What "point in time"? Time = the universe. There is NO POINT IN TIME where the universe did not exist.

Whenever there was time, there was a universe.

So really, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the universe has ALWAYS existed.

Always = for all of time.
So, whenever there was "time", there was a universe.

Do you have a problem with my understanding of nothing?

Honestly, I have a problem with any understanding of "nothing" where it isn't meant in a colloquial manner.

For example, I could say "there is nothing in this box". Meaning the box is "empty". Meaning, there aren't any "objects" in it. But there is atmosphere (ie, molecules, pressure, weight, energy, weird quantum stuff,...etc)

If you wish to define "nothing" as the state of "non-existence"... well, that's fine, but what does that mean? You can't "invoke" non-existence. To say that the universe "expands into non-existence" is also pretty meaningless imo.

Hence why I dislike the "into" part. Because it just seems senseless to me.
The universe simply expands, period. There is no "into". To quote a funny physicist of whom I forgot the name in a science talk about "nothing": "Well... there just is no 'there' there" :D

Lemme see if I can dig up the clip, as I think it's quite interesting to hear them discuss this.

Ha, found it. It's longer then I remembered though...
But for those interested:


Warning: if you manage to sit through the whole thing, your head might be spinning as a result :p
The "funny" guy I was referring to is the guy in the middle, with the blue blazer and colorful tie :)

However in any event TagliatelliMonster, the question has now been addressed by a number of people and I understand the different positions raised by members. Whatever your answer, I would guess someone has already provided a similar one. I do however appreciate your good intention to help, so please do not hesitate to respond if you feel like it.

It's a VERY interesting topic.

I like having my head blown off by this stuff, hahaha :)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

The Bible explains:

1) God stretches the visible universe, to widen/enlarge it (as verified today)

2) Heaven exists beyond the visible universe

Put those together with logic and you answer your important question.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Bible explains:

1) God stretches the visible universe, to widen/enlarge it (as verified today)

2) Heaven exists beyond the visible universe

Put those together with logic and you answer your important question.
The first appears to be a reinterpretation of a verse from Job in light of current knowledge. I am not sure where your second claim comes from.

Neither qualify as "explanations".
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So what's the problem?
What is referred to as the expansion of space-time, IS what creates "space". The space between 2 points in the universe grows larger. ie, more space is being created.
Oh well, forget it.

It´s OK with me if you believe that a conceptual idea of "space+time" can make the physical space to expand.

I don´t believe in the BB speculations anyway.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh well, forget it.

It´s OK with me if you believe that a conceptual idea of "space+time" can make the physical space to expand.

I don´t believe in the BB speculations anyway.
It does not matter what one believes. It matters what one can support with evidence. There is very strong evidence for the concept of space-time. The concept has been tested and confirmed many times. There is very strong evidence for the Big Bang. I do not think that there is any reliable evidence for other concepts, though I could be wrong.

Do you have any reliable evidence for other beliefs?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Honestly, I have a problem with any understanding of "nothing" where it isn't meant in a colloquial manner.

For example, I could say "there is nothing in this box". Meaning the box is "empty". Meaning, there aren't any "objects" in it. But there is atmosphere (ie, molecules, pressure, weight, energy, weird quantum stuff,...etc)

If you wish to define "nothing" as the state of "non-existence"... well, that's fine, but what does that mean? You can't "invoke" non-existence. To say that the universe "expands into non-existence" is also pretty meaningless imo.

The whole concept of 'nothing' and a 'vacuum' has a long history in philosophical discussion.

And interesting book on the medieval treatment of the vacuum is 'Much Ado about Nothing' by Edward Grant.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
In 2005, Professor Lene Hau did something that Einstein theorized was impossible.
Hau stopped light cold using atoms and lasers in her Harvard lab
 
Top