How did everything really begin?

[12padams]

After some amazing (yet personal) events have occurred the question of how did everything begin really is important to me. The last time I was desperate to know the answer was 10 years ago when I was 8 years old. I was surrounded by Jehovah's wittiness's explaining how god created the earth and then asked the question "What was god doing before he created the earth? Where did god's life begin?". And the answer I got just annoyed the crap out of me: "God is eternal, He's always been there". Then I said "but that's impossible, everything needs to have a beginning!"

 

I was the one who would always say "Where was god a year before he created earth, the year before that and the year before that. If you keep going backwards there has got to be a point of change, a point when god was discovering things, a point where he began". That's pretty deep for an 8 year old but that behavior got me in trouble and I forgot that logic once I was told over and over that god has always been there.

 

In highschool the theory of the big bang and things slowly evolving to what they are today made a lot more sense to me but the same massive logic loophole was still there. My 8 year old self would have been able to ask the same questions he did about the god theory and still find the breaking point. The questions are: "Why did the big bang occur? What caused all those elements to be a point and then suddenly explode to slowly evolve and create the universe? Where was that "dense point of existence" an hour before that explosion of existence? What happened a year before the explosion? How was that dense point of existence first created? What existed before it was created? If time is infinite... Keep telling me about the past, what happened before each event and there should be no beginning but rather a never ending sequence of events. If there is no beginning then why are we searching for one?

 

Well the theory that "time repeats itself" and goes in a loop popped into my head. Basically civilization feels that everything is doomed and needs to start over. With their advanced technology they condense the universe into a single point and hope it explodes into a more successful one. Or maybe the big crunch occurs and sucks the universe back to a single point so it can explode again and again as all life repeats itself exactly. This theory even makes "backwards" time travel possible because you would actually be moving forwards through a loop until you arrive at the point "in the past" you wish to experience. But then that question I asked as an 8 year old breaks the theory once again... "When did the first cycle occur? What set the cycle of events into motion? What happened an hour before the first cycle? What happened the year before that?

 

Lastly what if the world was all a computer program? As an ex-programmer myself I know that all code has a beginning and an end. A program running off that same code can also have a beginning yet an end can be avoided if a loop function is implemented. A program simulating the evolution of life such as Simearth (1990) can go on forever looping and looping with never ending random events that shape the earth and the life on it without ever having an end. But the program still had a beginning even though no life was there to witness it. Time within the computer program literally did not exist until the program was first executed. Yet before it was started it was coded and before that it existed only in the mind of a person who would soon create it. The existence of living and non-living things within the program didn't exist before it was first run but something existing in an "outer dimension" following a different system of time and existence created it.

 

If it's true that we are apart of a computer program and I have just become the "singularity" that has gained consciousness realizing that it is simply a "program" working aside a system of others then I have just a few questions for the creator of this program: What created you? What happened an hour before you were created? What about a year or two before that? Where did it all really begin?

Edited August 11, 2012 by 12padams

[zapatos]

You seem to be in the same boat as everyone else. You can speculate but you don't know.

[12padams]

You seem to be in the same boat as everyone else. You can speculate but you don't know.

 

Yes, I hate this boat of confusion and don't pick any sides when it comes to creation. Hopefully I will get the answer soon and prove it to the world in undeniable ways which can only occur if the "spiritual" side of things really do exist.

 

Still someone here said they believe in the big bang theory yet didn't answer my question! WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG? lol, its fun to avoid questions that can't be answered

[Phi for All]

Yes, I hate this boat of confusion and don't pick any sides when it comes to creation. Hopefully I will get the answer soon and prove it to the world in undeniable ways which can only occur if the "spiritual" side of things really do exist.

What on earth makes you think you're going to get "the answer soon"? What kind of "proof" do you think would convince "the world"?

 

Still someone here said they believe in the big bang theory yet didn't answer my question! WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG? lol, its fun to avoid questions that can't be answered

I think we need some rule changes in Religion/Philosophy. There are an AWFUL lot of agenda-oriented people lately who consider creation fun and interesting.

[zapatos]

Yes, I hate this boat of confusion and don't pick any sides when it comes to creation. Hopefully I will get the answer soon and prove it to the world in undeniable ways which can only occur if the "spiritual" side of things really do exist.

If you can undeniably prove the spiritual side of things that will be quite a feat. Best of luck to you.

 

Still someone here said they believe in the big bang theory yet didn't answer my question! WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG? lol, its fun to avoid questions that can't be answered

I believe in the Big Bang theory. However, the BBT makes no attempt to explain the 'creation of existence'.

 

No one is avoiding the question. They are avoiding giving an answer when they do not have one. Anyone who answers what occurred prior to the Big Bang is, like you, speculating.

[12padams]

What on earth makes you think you're going to get "the answer soon"? What kind of "proof" do you think would convince "the world"?

I shouldn't have said that... Lets just say someone I know is going to attempt prove something to me on sept 11th 2012. If it works then in 2013 I can prove it to the world. Anyway please don't further question the proof and september aspect of all this... Its not me, its him and I wouldn't be allowed to explain it anyway.

 

I believe in the Big Bang theory. However, the BBT makes no attempt to explain the 'creation of existence'.

No one is avoiding the question. They are avoiding giving an answer when they do not have one. Anyone who answers what occurred prior to the Big Bang is, like you, speculating.

Awesome, thanks for that. It was important for me to hear

[iNow]

Have you seen this talk from Lawrence Krauss? It's just slightly over an hour, and discusses this concept quite a bit.

 

 

[David Levy]

Charles Robert Darwin had already replied: "All what we see today have descended over time".

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_Darwin

Edited August 11, 2012 by David Levy

[Hooman]

Charles Robert Darwin had already replied: "All what we see today have descended over time".

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_Darwin

 

Excuse me, What is this?!

Please do pay attention that OP is asking about creation of existence not evolution. (or I'm missing something here?)

[David Levy]

Hi Hooman

 

 

 

Yes, it's similar situation.

 

Let's start with life creation; Think about the development of life. What was the concept before Darwin's time? Don't you agree that most ofthe people believed that the life had been created in some sort of big bang which creates all life versatilities??? Darwin had proved that it was wrong concept. The lives of all we see have descended over time. Therefore, we had stopped thinking on life creation and started to think on life evolution. There is still a question how the first cell of life had been created, but we have some speculations.

 

With regards to the universe creation, it is similar story. Darwin rejects the concept of big bang for creation. All what we see in the universe have descended over time. Hence, there is a mechanism which generate new mass as the universe expends. This mechanism is part of the steady state theory. It's unclear how it is started, but it's clear that based on Darwin approach, the big bang is might be a fantasy story.

 

Unfortunately, most of the scientists today do believe that the Big Bang is a real story. They had also developed several companion theories which should support this theory.

Edited August 11, 2012 by David Levy

[Hooman]

Hi Hooman

 

 

 

Yes, it's similar situation.

 

Let's start with life creation; Think about the development of life. What was the concept before Darwin's time? Don't you agree that most ofthe people believed that the life had been created in some sort of big bang which creates all life versatilities??? Darwin had proved that it was wrong concept. The lives of all we see have descended over time. Therefore, we had stopped thinking on life creation and started to think on life evolution. There is still a question how the first cell of life had been created, but we have some speculations.

 

With regards to the universe creation, it is similar story. Darwin rejects the concept of big bang for creation. All what we see in the universe have descended over time. Hence, there is a mechanism which generate new mass as the universe expends. This mechanism is part of the steady state theory. It's unclear how it is started, but it's clear that based on Darwin approach, the big bang is might be a fantasy story.

 

Unfortunately, most of the scientists today do believe that the Big Bang is a real story. They had also developed several companion theories which should support this theory.

 

Hi.

 

Still I think Darwin's theory of evolution is pretty much irrelevant. Evolution just shows how life form has become more and more complicated over time and has nothing to do with how the universe has been created.

So the only relevant fact that can be concluded from evolution theory is that the universe hasn't been created at its present state with its present creatures for sure.

And my understanding from OP's post is that he\she is asking about creation of universe and not development of life.

 

I have bold\italicized a part of your post. I just can't understand that. What does expansion of universe have to do with generation of new mass?

I do not have much information about physical theories so your guidance about my just asked question and also about what steady state theory is would be very much appreciated.

[Phi for All]

I shouldn't have said that... Lets just say someone I know is going to attempt prove something to me on sept 11th 2012.

It should be noted that anyone who claims they're going to "prove" anything to you isn't doing science. Math deals in proofs, science deals in theory backed up by supportive evidence to provide the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena.

 

That's why I trust in the Big Bang Theory. It has the most supportive evidence, and fits well with other cosmological theories, making it the most likely explanation while still being subject to refinement and change.

 

Evolution just shows how life form has become more and more complicated over time and has nothing to do with how the universe has been created.

True that evolution has nothing to do with creation, false that it shows how life becomes more complicated. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. Many single-celled organisms haven't grown more complicated, also viruses and parasites. And change doesn't have to be more complicated, just better adapted to an environment.

 

Not in any official capacity, since I'm involved in this discussion, but I would advise everyone to stop bringing up evolution in this thread since it's off-topic and will probably get snipped or moved by another Moderator.

[iNow]

Hopefully I will get the answer soon and prove it to the world in undeniable ways which can only occur if the "spiritual" side of things really do exist.

 

 

[Hooman]

It should be noted that anyone who claims they're going to "prove" anything to you isn't doing science. Math deals in proofs, science deals in theory backed up by supportive evidence to provide the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena.

 

Thanks for correcting me.

Math is also some kind of science, right?! And giving proofs is not exclusive to math , so is the case with theories and other sciences. Though your point (I think) is taken, just saying.

Could you please give me a definition for "doing science"?

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

[Fuzzwood]

Where is the math?

[Phi for All]

Math is also some kind of science, right?! And giving proofs is not exclusive to math , so is the case with theories and other sciences. Though your point (I think) is taken, just saying.

Could you please give me a definition for "doing science"?

Math is more of the language of science than a science itself. Mathematical proofs can actually be thought of as true, where science deals in theory which, by the nature of the scientific method, can't be thought of in such absolute, certain terms. Theories need to be tested and added to constantly, and using them to make predictions that lead to more understanding, so it thwarts the whole concept to think, "Oh, we've got this one 100%, time to move on!"

 

Certainly, a theory is the best you can get in science, and shouldn't be thought of as "only a theory" (as so many people do these days). A scientific theory represents the most supported explanation available, one that can be trusted because those "doing science" in this way are following the best methodology the human species has ever come up with to seek explanations for how our universe works.

[tar]

Have you seen this talk from Lawrence Krauss? It's just slightly over an hour, and discusses this concept quite a bit.

 

 

 

Have not read the rest of this thread but have now watched this lecture twice, and find I have some of the same objections to Krauss's logic as before, so I'd like to talk about it down in speculations. "Is Krauss looking at this right?"

 

Regards, TAR2

[Ben Banana]

Reflexivity is so fun to think about.

 

EDIT: By the way, your poll options could overlap so much. There could be people who would easily pick all of them.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[PeterJ]

Kant and Hegel use logic to show that the universe (or 'existence') must 'begin' or emerge from a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category, and in philosophy nobody has improved on this idea yet. Science may or may not go for it but it is the only idea that works in logic. For a mathematical approach to this idea try exploring Geroge Spence Brown. Here's a starting point...

 

http://www.lawsofform.org/lof.html

 

A phenomenon that is not an instance of a category is inevitably beyond any observation by the senses or conception by the intellect, of course, and this makes it a rather odd topic of study. Well worth it though, if we are interested in the origin of existence. It'll do your head in, but it does work.

 

One thing at least we know for sure, after all this time, and this is that the idea that it all began with Nothing or Something does not work. Otherwise ontology would be easy.

[Alan McDougall]

Yes, I hate this boat of confusion and don't pick any sides when it comes to creation. Hopefully I will get the answer soon and prove it to the world in undeniable ways which can only occur if the "spiritual" side of things really do exist.

 

Still someone here said they believe in the big bang theory yet didn't answer my question! WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG? lol, its fun to avoid questions that can't be answered

 

 

 

In my opinion there can only be two answers to this most profound of all questions

 

1) There was never a beginning and the Big Bang did not create everything, only our universe? OR Existence is both infinite and eternal without cause or reason.

 

2) God created everything?

[MigL]

I'd first like to warn you that my background is physics, and of course, the big bang theory makes the most sense to me. I would suggest that it would to you also if, and only if, you take the time to learn and understand it. If you ask questions like " what happened one hour/ year/millenia before the big bang ? "or " how could a point of infinite density expand to fill the universe ? ", then I really don't think you have a very good handle on it at all.

 

Of all your other possibilities, the creation by (a) God could also work, but (S)He would be a devious God. And just as people of Darwin's time, who thought the world was only 6000yrs old ( Biblically ) and fossil records were millions of yrs old, assumed God had created 'false' fossil records, we could extend this kind of thinking to encompass your computer program scenario. We would be in effect be either living in the 'now' and God has created all previous history, including personal memories, or not even living and God has even created our sense of 'being' and of 'now'. In effect our existence would be just a trick by a devious, malevolent God.

 

But that seems kind of far fetched, don't you think ?

Edited September 9, 2012 by MigL

[PeterJ]

Yes. God doesn't work. He is a nonreductive theory, as the OP noticed when arguing with his Jehovah's Witnesses. Nor does the idea that there was something 'before' the Big Bang, which would mean 'before' the clock started running.

 

I still think Kant, Hegel and The Buddha got it right. It's the only idea that makes sense.

 

For this would we would have to say that existence did not start, and that for an ultimate analysis nothing really exists. This moves the goal posts in a significant way.

 

At the risk of starting a tricky argument I'll say that this is provable and has been proved. But it's a logical or metaphysical proof, mathematical in form but not in language.

 

What is more, if this idea is correct then it is possible for usw to know how it all 'began'.

 

Yes, I know this will look like madness to some people. But I thought the OP might like it mentioned that a proof is not a priori impossible, just tricky, and there are a few proofs about, one or two of them extremely famous.

 

 

 

 

[finster]

For a possible answer to the origin of the big bang as a phenomenon of consciousness, see my thread here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69397-why-the-existence-of-the-universe-does-not-need-to-be-solved-a-series-of-diagrams-on-the-relativity-of-existence/

[Alan McDougall]

For a possible answer to the origin of the big bang as a phenomenon of consciousness, see my thread here:

 

http://www.sciencefo...y-of-existence/

 

And God said "Let there be light and there was Light"

[dmaiski]

this is why I don’t believe in the "god" theory:

I(dmaiski) created the universe.

 

Ok? Get it? You believe me? No!? Why? how is this possible I am just saying the truth...

if you believed what I said is true, you are gullible.

if you think its impossible, you are small minded.

if you think it could be true, you are agnostic.

 

 

My theory for the beginning of everything is this; it never happened.

 

simply put if there is nothing, nothing cannot produce anything

so what we exist in is simply a wrinkle in nothingness