-Oy-
Bloke with a camera
- Location
- Lancashire
Has there always been stuff or nothing?
- Thread starter David777
- Start date
JustDave
Well-known Member
How they describe the big bang, does sound like an explosion, but cosmologists are quick to explain it was not an explosion, but an expansion at a speed beyond my comprehension. What the difference between the two is I haven't figured out. Maybe an explosion changes what exists to a different form of matter and energy, while an expansion creates new matter and energy. But I'm only guessing. But I don't think you would want to be standing in the way of the expansion. Of course, you couldn't because there is nothing in the way of the expansion.
Mr. Ed
Be what you is not what you what you ain’t
- Location
- Central NY
Alligatorob
SF VIP
Here is how Wikipedia defines explosion:
An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion
Seems to me to fit the big bang.
I like this explanation, one I can understand...
MarkD
Keeper of the Hounds & Garden
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
Logic shows nothing except tautologies unless it begins with undeniable and substantial premises. Sophistry and rhetoric is what logical claims serve best.
RadishRose
SF VIP
- Location
- Connecticut, USA
SeniorBen
Senior Member
It's the nature of man to understand why things are the way they are. At one time, they attributed it to magic. We now know better, but it requires a bit of learning to understand. For some, that's too much work, so they continue to believe in magic.
JustDave
Well-known Member
Lavinia said: Whoever wrote the Bible believed that originally there was a void, then 'God' had a thought (energy) which then solidified into matter. On what was this thinking based? If our ancestors had limited knowledge, how did they even imagine this concept? Why did they feel the need to explain how our existence came about?
It's easy to see where that would lead. Whatever created the Universe must have been pretty smart, so it must have been something in the image of man, who was the smartest thing on the planet. But this man had to have powers that a normal man didn't have. Enter the concept of god with magical powers unavailable to man. The rest just took imagination. A god like entity would have been a natural evolution of imagination and lack of knowledge. A good attempt at theory at the time, but with no means of verification.
I originally avoided Lavinia question because I didn't understand it. But I can build on yours. In addition to man's nature to understand, and Lavinia's observation that early man lacked knowledge, man also has unrivaled imagination, at least we think it's unrivaled. Now combine lack of knowledge with vivid imagination.
It's easy to see where that would lead. Whatever created the Universe must have been pretty smart, so it must have been something in the image of man, who was the smartest thing on the planet. But this man had to have powers that a normal man didn't have. Enter the concept of god with magical powers unavailable to man. The rest just took imagination. A god like entity would have been a natural evolution of imagination and lack of knowledge. A good attempt at theory at the time, but with no means of verification.
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
A race of ancient intelligent entities as zoo masters, ZMs, involved in development of a planet with evolving science primitive intelligent organic beings, IOBs, like we homo sapiens, can be expected to not choose to interfere openly with such beings lest they inadvertently cause problems they could be later blamed for. That is the basis for in Star Trek fiction, The Prime Directive. Instead Let it Be shows wisdom.
If such IOBs are having negative social issues, their ZMs would likely interfere carefully in minimal ways with very limited others. Moses of the Old Testament could be one such contact. IOBs would not understand science valid explanations if their ZMs tried to explain with such, as anything they communicated would lead to an endless trail of more questions defeating their purpose of very limited intervention. The IOB contact would doubtless want to ask endless questions to their ZMs. The ZMs would also understand if they never ever provided any answers, there might come a time centuries later in a science era when the ZMs could be criticized. Thus might provide visual information in video form to an IOB contact of say creation and other things, and video record how the contact interpreted what they saw in whatever primitive manner they did.
So I'll speculate, that may have happened with Moses and the ZMs have ever since had a good laugh watching what happened and reading what he later recorded in Genesis. Now in this science era if the ZMs ever come out into the open as I suspect they might if fearing 4 billion years of evolution work is lost due to we IOB war mongers destroying it all, they merely need to show us the original Moses video to prove it was not they which for millennia have misled us but rather was Moses and all those following scribes with agendas of their corrupt rulers, own writings. The ZMs could rightly argue, they had no ethical reason to continually correct writings that would be endless over each generation and isolated civilizations world wide. Another reason from basic social logic why the notion of Bible continual inspired inerrancy is flawed. Or why doesn't just God show himself flying through the clouds with a vast Angelic force, so we can know with certainty.
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy
SF VIP
- Location
- The Sticks, Northeast PA.
It's an interesting question, but there's really no way to answer it. If something was here before the universe, it's not here now. Our present scientific knowledge , in 2023, is rather limited. In a mere 100 years, it will be considered extremely quaint and inadequate.
-Oy-
Bloke with a camera
- Location
- Lancashire
Maybe what was there before the Big Bang was the leftovers and result of the last Big Collapse.
oldlongwalker
Member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
If by the word "universe" you mean everything, then there can't be something else without a contradiction in terms.
That means either there has always been something, or the universe came out of nothing. My pick is the first option. The second just leads to something like God. And that only pushes back the question to where God came from.
Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
It may then lead onto, if "nothing" could have existed without God first creating it, then what created God. Then to lead on to say that if God always existed, then the universe could also have always existed.
oldlongwalker
Member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Precisely.
Knight
Well-known Member
A question I've asked in several different threads dealing with religion. Attributing the creation of our universe & all life on earth without knowing how that creator was created seems to me to be short sighted.
Who or what is the creators creator & is that being or whatever the real reason there is life on planet earth?
oldlongwalker
Member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Hindu cosmology holds that the universe is an infinite series of creation events, destructions and creations.
SeniorBen
Senior Member
A more plausible theory than the "god" theory is the cosmological chicken theory, where a chicken lays an egg that contains all the necessary ingredients for the formation of the universe. A chicken egg is about the same size as the estimated size of the universe at the time of the big bang — the singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature that existed before the Big Bang. The egg contained all the necessary components for the formation of the universe, including matter, energy, and the fundamental forces that govern its behavior. When the egg hatched, it released a burst of energy and matter that expanded rapidly, giving rise to the universe as we know it.
It goes without saying that the chicken experienced a great deal of discomfort while laying the egg.
It goes without saying that the chicken experienced a great deal of discomfort while laying the egg.
Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
I was wondering the same thing. And more so if it was anything like the fabled Cadbury Chocolate Square Egg?
It doesn’t bear thinking about!
Actually, I’ve just thought, how do we know it was a female chicken? This mind experiment opens up a whole new concept. One that would probably get lost on most people.
Last edited:
Knight
Well-known Member
Are you considering successful parthenogenesis stemming from a living organism from space as a beginning & evolution as an alternative to a creator? That would be contrary to the belief that a being not yet known how he or she was created but seems to have been chosen as the reason life began on our planet.
oldlongwalker
Member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Building blocks of life on earth have been found on an asteroid.
Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
No I wasn't considering that at the time, but good point. Although, it's worth noting that even if parthenogenesis was involved in the origins of life on Earth, it doesn't necessarily mean that ‘aliens’ were responsible, or chickens for that matter, asexual or otherwise. It could just be a case of spontaneous generation, like how a pile of dirty dishes can magically give birth to a new form of life. Or at least they can in my house.
Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
The exact mechanism by which life emerged from non-life is still a mystery, and there are many different theories and hypotheses about how it could have happened. I tend to fall into the camp of abiogenesis. Perhaps being formed slowly from simple organic molecules in the early Earth's atmosphere or in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, or something similar. Others suggest that life may have been brought to Earth from elsewhere in the universe, from meteorites or comets? If so, that how did that form?
The exact mechanisms by which life can arise from non-life (abiogenesis), is I believe an active area of scientific research and investigation. But what methods of research, I don’t know. Some proposed theories involve chemical reactions and self-organizing systems that may have occurred in the early Earth's environment. These processes may have led to the emergence of simple, self-replicating molecules that gradually evolved into more complex life forms over time?
UPDATE: Maybe the formation of life from non-life just needs the right set of laws. In that the emergence of life on our planet was not due to a supernatural or divine intervention, but rather due to the inherent properties and laws in our universe, physics, chemistry laws that may have randomly formed? The presence of water and organic molecules, over time, with the correct or ideal set of universal laws, with the right conditions, may have led to abiogenesis??? A different universe with a different set of laws may not be right for producing life?
Anyway, I think i may have had to much Gin -- its probably time for me to stop now.
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts
I just accept this;
The book of John
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men
Romans 1:22-32 talks about man's conjecture
I just accept this;
The book of John
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men
Romans 1:22-32 talks about man's conjecture
Last edited:
SeniorBen
Senior Member
Amazon delivery.
Magna-Carta
Senior Member
- Location
- UK
Only if they did it by drone