What or when was the beginning of everything?

[Cranky]

There is one question that my mind has never been able to wrap itself around. What or when was the beginning? I don't care where, because that really does not matter. What I want to know is what was there before the big bang? And even if it was preceded with another big bang (expansion and contraction theory), at some point everything has to have a beginning.

If the universe does not have a beginning, then the creationist view takes a bit of a toe hold. Until you ask the question, did God have a beginning? The attempt to explain everything exists as the work of a greater force (God) falls into the same trap with the questing of: What created this greater force?

[PTH]

42

[mic]

pth said:

42

You let me behind...Haaa... can't blame you.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

There is one question that my mind has never been able to wrap itself around. What or when was the beginning? I don't care where, because that really does not matter. What I want to know is what was there before the big bang? And even if it was preceded with another big bang (expansion and contraction theory), at some point everything has to have a beginning.

If the universe does not have a beginning, then the creationist view takes a bit of a toe hold. Until you ask the question, did God have a beginning? The attempt to explain everything exists as the work of a greater force (God) falls into the same trap with the questing of: What created this greater force?

That, my friend, is indeed the ultimate question.

pth said:

42

That, my friend, may indeed be the ultimate answer . . . but it will not do.

The traditional cosmological argumentholds that no matter how far back you go there must be an uncaused cause that initiated all – from the Judeo-Christian (as well as Islamic and other religious) perspectives . . . God.
Framed as a formal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

Philosopher Bertrand Russell disputes that the universe needs an explanation and says that it “just is”.

Ultimately one’s faith (either theological conviction or humanistic philosophy) determines belief as to whether or not there is a God-Creator. Ultimate proof will not be given.

If totally unsure you can always hedge your bets with Pascal’s Wager; aka Pascal’s Gambit

From these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal deduced that it would be better to believe in God unconditionally.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Win with God or one with God?

[franko]

Yup.

If this doesn't bring Blaise back nothing will!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

Yup.

If this doesn't bring Blaise back nothing will!

God willing.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

habsaddict said:

There is one question that my mind has never been able to wrap itself around. What or when was the beginning? I don't care where, because that really does not matter. What I want to know is what was there before the big bang? And even if it was preceded with another big bang (expansion and contraction theory), at some point everything has to have a beginning.

If the universe does not have a beginning, then the creationist view takes a bit of a toe hold. Until you ask the question, did God have a beginning? The attempt to explain everything exists as the work of a greater force (God) falls into the same trap with the questing of: What created this greater force?

That, my friend, is indeed the ultimate question.

pth said:

42

That, my friend, may indeed be the ultimate answer . . . but it will not do.

The traditional cosmological argumentholds that no matter how far back you go there must be an uncaused cause that initiated all – from the Judeo-Christian (as well as Islamic and other religious) perspectives . . . God.
Framed as a formal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

Philosopher Bertrand Russell disputes that the universe needs an explanation and says that it “just is”.

Ultimately one’s faith (either theological conviction or humanistic philosophy) determines belief as to whether or not there is a God-Creator. Ultimate proof will not be given.

If totally unsure you can always hedge your bets with Pascal’s Wager; aka Pascal’s Gambit

From these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal deduced that it would be better to believe in God unconditionally.

A few observations

The Big Bangers won. No one holds the contraction idea.

If there was as seems to be the case, a beginning to this time/space continnum, then some sort of personal supernatural creator exists. (No natural power can create something out of nothing.)

RE: "
Ultimately one’s faith (either theological conviction or humanistic philosophy) determines belief as to whether or not there is a God-Creator. Ultimate proof will not be given."

That is an act of faith in logical skepticism; one I don't subscribe to. The cosmological arguments are sound. They are not religion, or faith or belief. They are answers given from reason to the question "How come the universe?"

That the arguments conclude what most of us already believe should hardly be surprising.
Dogmatic materialism, based upon a fallacy, holds sway in the culture, but we would be very foolish indeed to accept this dogmatism at the cost of exploring the nature of existence itlself.

Professor Kreeft teaches philosophy at Boston College, and the following link will provide an audio link to a lecture he gave on the cosmological proof for the existence of God. It's a neat listen on the only really interesting question.


www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god/02_first-cause.mp3

[franko]

btw, haven't we been through this once already, with no definitive conclusions (except in our own minds) but everyone heading to their corners licking their wounds and thinking they'd convinced the other side (or at least thinking the other side was at least thinking about other possibilities)?

[MC Habber]

toronthab said:

That the arguments conclude what most of us already believe should hardly be surprising.

Until fairly recently, most people on this continent believed that black people were inferior to white people.

Most Canadians and Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Most people once believed that the world was flat.

Human beings are not necessarily prone to holding "correct" beliefs.

[Toronthab]

machabby said:

toronthab said:

That the arguments conclude what most of us already believe should hardly be surprising.

Until fairly recently, most people on this continent believed that black people were inferior to white people.

Most Canadians and Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Most people once believed that the world was flat.

Human beings are not necessarily prone to holding "correct" beliefs.

Until fairly recently black cultures had been vastly outstripped by white in terns of social organization and technological progress. In many ways the cultures were inferior. Most would not reduce the difference to colour.

A supposedly friendly power, their own government invested their integrity in the lie of Iraq and the liars continue to be supported by a puppy media. Propaganda, including dogmatic materialism, or dogmatic agnosticism collects its victims. I prefer not to be one of them. Most people cannot be talked out of the belief that they need food, that the sun usually rises each day and that the universe is an unbelievably intricate marvel beyond imagining and very unlikely to be a statistically freakish event.

The world was and is flat relative to us. Their belief was partially true.

On this question of some sort of supreme being, though unsophisticated, they usually are right. It's just too obvious. I'll bet you're just like the rest of us on this. And why shouldn't you be?

[Toronthab]

franko said:

btw, haven't we been through this once already, with no definitive conclusions (except in our own minds) but everyone heading to their corners licking their wounds and thinking they'd convinced the other side (or at least thinking the other side was at least thinking about other possibilities)?

Hi Franko

Hey! I didn't start this thread and my fairly sharp recollection is that there was not a great deal of pertinent content offered in the past. So go ahead and challenge my dogma. I don't want to hold nonsense as sense. Who would?

Is there a flaw in the cosmological argument? If so, what is it? If the argument (in one or more of its several presentations) is sound, when understood, then it should of course be accepted.

The idea that the question cannot be resolved by human reasoning is not in the least self-evident and therefore the case for this belief too must also be presented. Why on earth can't one prove or disprove the existence of God by the right use of reason.

Is there something wrong with the statement that if the Big Bang, as a singularity occurred, then something necessarily supernatural created the universe? If so, what?

I am questioning the questionable questioning. I think one of the best things I received from the study of philosophy, metaphysics and logic, was a pretty high degree of confidence in the power of the human intellect to know stuff.

I meet a lot of people who go beyond a healthy skepticism and don't really trust even their own intellects.

[franko]

toronthab said:

Until fairly recently black cultures had been vastly outstripped by white in terns of social organization and technological progress. In many ways the cultures were inferior. Most would not reduce the difference to colour.

Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, wonders why this would be . . . why the so-called cradle of civilization was quickly passed technologically by the Eurasian culture. A good read.

The world was and is flat relative to us. Their belief was partially true.

Perception is everything?

On this question of some sort of supreme being, though unsophisticated, they usually are right. It's just too obvious.

Obviously obvious to you . . . but agnostics and skeptics hold back.

Blaise would want to see God (empirical proof) before believing (PTH too, from some of his comments).

Possibilities:

1. There was nothing; then there was (big bang) . . . out of nothing, something.
2. There was God; then there was . . . HA simply wants to know what there was before God. And if God always "was" (an uncaused cause) why could there have always been an atom or something else uncaused.

On another matter (or perhaps an extension of this one), where is the centre of the universe (avoiding/ignoring the conclusion of the movie of the same title)? If there was indeed a big bang, and if we live in an expanding universe, we should be able to somehow discover the starting point and hone in on where it all began.

[Skilly]

franko said:

Framed as a formal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

Philosopher Bertrand Russell disputes that the universe needs an explanation and says that it “just is”.

The flaw is this logic algorithm to me is number 6. By whose definition does the word God mean "uncaused first cause". Not to Webster, nor Funk N Wagnells.

The best I get out of this is

1. All things are caused by nature ..... God must be natural if he exists. Or he isn't a thing and is not cause by nature hence he doesn't exist.

2. Nothing in nature can cause itself ..... if God is natural then something else caused him if God is not natural then he caused himself?

What proof is there that we exist? The universe could be a big bowl of God's soup and we are a complete experiment in his petri dish. Who knows?

As for the center of the universe? I have been applying Einstein's Theory of Relativity and calculating the center of mass of known celestial bodies relative to earth using Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. The more mass that enters the equation when grouping planets and then comparing that center of mass in relation to a new heavenly body entering the equation has little effect on the center of the mass (in atronomical terms) once you get outside our solar system. This is effected by orbit and velocities (the gravity being greater the closer it gets to us, and the speed quicker) but the center of the universe was constant in my calculations : 40 Bay Street. the ACC

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Lord Stanley was the beginning of everything.

"And the Lord spake, let there be a red-line. And there was, and it was good."

[Cranky]

I have a theory....

Everything warps into itself. Sort of an endless loop where matter, energy, time and space constantly folds into itself. Sort of a giant black hole that is more of a Moebeus loop.

Even THAT theory needs some kind of beginning.

The very essence of the question is: In the beginning....WHAT? Bang? Poof? What is that damn beginning made of? I refuse to believe that there was NOTHING before the big bang. On top of that, it's hard enough for me to believe there is a "God" and harder still if I am told there was no "beginning" of this entity.

I'm heading for the mountain top for an answer!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsaddict said:

I'm heading for the mountain top for an answer!

Bring back some oregano, and a lamb if you pass one along the way back down. Many thanks in advance. And good luck!

I am willing to pay for the goods. How does 30 pieces of silver sound? Hmmm, better make it a milk-producing sheep in that case.

Oh, grab some lemons too, if you see them. And thank Zeus for his generosity toward this feeble-minded species.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

I have a theory....

Everything warps into itself. Sort of an endless loop where matter, energy, time and space constantly folds into itself. Sort of a giant black hole that is more of a Moebeus loop.

Even THAT theory needs some kind of beginning.

The very essence of the question is: In the beginning....WHAT? Bang? Poof? What is that damn beginning made of? I refuse to believe that there was NOTHING before the big bang. On top of that, it's hard enough for me to believe there is a "God" and harder still if I am told there was no "beginning" of this entity.

Let's confuse matters even more: if there is a beginning does there need to be an ending? "Forever and ever" is a looonnnnng time!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

habsaddict said:

I have a theory....

Everything warps into itself. Sort of an endless loop where matter, energy, time and space constantly folds into itself. Sort of a giant black hole that is more of a Moebeus loop.

Even THAT theory needs some kind of beginning.

The very essence of the question is: In the beginning....WHAT? Bang? Poof? What is that damn beginning made of? I refuse to believe that there was NOTHING before the big bang. On top of that, it's hard enough for me to believe there is a "God" and harder still if I am told there was no "beginning" of this entity.

Let's confuse matters even more: if there is a beginning does there need to be an ending? "Forever and ever" is a looonnnnng time!

Any good story has a beginning, a middle, and an end—why should the saga of the human race be any different?

Pardon me, but it's time to lie down and dream of a different world.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habsaddict said:

I have a theory....

Everything warps into itself. Sort of an endless loop where matter, energy, time and space constantly folds into itself. Sort of a giant black hole that is more of a Moebeus loop.

Sounds like a successful whipped cream to me. Don't try to climb the peaks, though.

[franko]

mrbozo said:

Any good story has a beginning, a middle, and an end—why should the saga of the human race be any different?

But we aren't talking about the human race -- we're talking about life, the universe, and everything.

As to our saga . . . here's a blast from your past:

They're rioting in Africa.
They're starving in Spain.
There's hurricanes in Florida
and Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. T
he French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch
and I don't like anybody very much!

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
for man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day
someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away.

They're rioting in Africa.
There's strife in Iran.
What nature doesn't do to us
will be done by our fellow man.

The Merry Minuet, The Kingston Trio

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

mrbozo said:

Any good story has a beginning, a middle, and an end—why should the saga of the human race be any different?

But we aren't talking about the human race -- we're talking about life, the universe, and everything.

As to our saga . . . here's a blast from your past:

They're rioting in Africa.
They're starving in Spain.
There's hurricanes in Florida
and Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. T
he French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch
and I don't like anybody very much!

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
for man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day
someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away.

They're rioting in Africa.
There's strife in Iran.
What nature doesn't do to us
will be done by our fellow man.

The Merry Minuet, The Kingston Trio

As an angel confided to Frank Black in a 3rd (and final) season episode of Chris Carter's best series "Millennium". "You have no idea how painful it is for me to be here."

Life (as most oif us know it) is suffering. That is the reality. American television rubs salt into the wounds—which is why it is banned in many countries around the world.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

Until fairly recently black cultures had been vastly outstripped by white in terns of social organization and technological progress. In many ways the cultures were inferior. Most would not reduce the difference to colour.

Jared Diamond, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, wonders why this would be . . . why the so-called cradle of civilization was quickly passed technologically by the Eurasian culture. A good read.


Perception is everything?

On this question of some sort of supreme being, though unsophisticated, they usually are right. It's just too obvious.

Obviously obvious to you . . . but agnostics and skeptics hold back.

Blaise would want to see God (empirical proof) before believing (PTH too, from some of his comments).

Possibilities:

1. There was nothing; then there was (big bang) . . . out of nothing, something.
2. There was God; then there was . . . HA simply wants to know what there was before God. And if God always "was" (an uncaused cause) why could there have always been an atom or something else uncaused.

On another matter (or perhaps an extension of this one), where is the centre of the universe (avoiding/ignoring the conclusion of the movie of the same title)? If there was indeed a big bang, and if we live in an expanding universe, we should be able to somehow discover the starting point and hone in on where it all began.

Guns germs and steel would have a lot to do with it I do suppose, but what I might in a qualified way describe as the ascendency of the west was largely a function of the development of true science, moving beyond mere observation. Many erroneouslyu consider Galileo to be the father of scientific method. He wasn't. It had been developped hundreds of years earlier and was commonly taught. Christianity freed nature and the study of nature from theology. The differentiation of the areas of study was fundamental to our life today.

The world is flat. Mostly. Relative to our feet. If it weren't, we would mostly fall over a lot.
That the planet is spherical does not negate its flatness. Their perception was fine. Their extrapolation wasn't.

The supreme being thing is a virtual given with most. Most agnostics are philosophically uncertain, and almost always not even remotely aware of the arguments or issues. Much of agnosticism is religious agnosticism. I once heard of a poll wherein, as I recall something like 97% of Canadians think, or rather believe that their must be some sort of God thing up there. Mankind has throughout history and always will. It's almost unavoidable.

I can't speak for Blaise, but his notion of what knowledge is, and failure to see how limited "science" is, precludes the possibility of metaphysical cogency. Many in our culture maintain the afterglow of 19th century materialism or naturalism. It was a blush of excitement at the many real and obvious accomplishments of the natural sciences.
"The Science before Science" by the distinguished physicist and philosopher Dr. Anthony Rizzi is by far the best book I've come across on the subject.

Neat how you say there was nothing. Nothing isn't. It lacks being. It is the abscence of being. Aquinas' arguments for the existtence of God deal with how it is that there is something.

I will put in the link to Professor Kreeft's audio bit on the cosmological argument. He deals with some of the objections as well, like Bertrand Russell's.

As to why there might always have been atoms (something I don't know), and yet createdness, Aquinas' argument is about a herarchy of causes .....right now..this instant..the ground of being itself. Not things that exist, but THAT things exist. His metaphysics is an investigation into the nature of being itself. So cool.

I know absolutely nothing about the putative center of the universe, or even whether it is reasonable to so speak of something that is (I am told) finite but unbounded.

How cool that someone on this board has an answer.... not to mention all the other sparklers on this page. It was a fun read.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

franko said:

But we aren't talking about the human race -- we're talking about life, the universe, and everything.

As to our saga . . . here's a blast from your past:

They're rioting in Africa.
They're starving in Spain.
There's hurricanes in Florida
and Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. T
he French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch
and I don't like anybody very much!

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
for man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day
someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away.

They're rioting in Africa.
There's strife in Iran.
What nature doesn't do to us
will be done by our fellow man.

The Merry Minuet, The Kingston Trio

As an angel confided to Frank Black in a 3rd (and final) season episode of Chris Carter's best series "Millennium". "You have no idea how painful it is for me to be here."

Life (as most oif us know it) is suffering. That is the reality. American television rubs salt into the wounds—which is why it is banned in many countries around the world.

I love that Angel quote. Reminds me of C.S. Lewis

This from Staney Jaki, who to me bridges naurally in his person the ideological gap that exist in so many of us in the West



Even the most advanced scientific discoveries in the fields of cosmology and nuclear physics cannot shed any light on what caused the creation of the Universe, Fr. Stanley Jaki, the eminent priest-physicist, said during his visit to Australia in July.

Discoveries in the field of nuclear physics and astronomy have given us an insight into what happened after the instant of creation. But what preceded that singularity, when matter was created from nothing, can never be known from scientific studies, he said.

Fr Jaki, a Benedictine priest who was awarded a doctorate in nuclear physics from Fordham University, spoke to audiences in Sydney, Canberra, Wagga Wagga and Melbourne on "Science and Religion on the Creation of the Universe."

He said, "It is a principle of science that a scientific proposition must be verified by quantitative analysis. When Stephen Hawking asserts that the origins of the Universe prove that God does not exist, that proposition cannot be proved scientifically.

"Just because you are a scientist does not mean that every statement you make is correct," he said. "What can science say about the Creation? The answer is nothing. Scientists cannot observe nothing."

Fr. Jaki said, however, that science and religion are consistent, and therefore scientific analysis can shed light on both scientific and theological propositions.

www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/sep1992p9_762.html

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

There are two kinds of thought.

Thought about things which we can influence, and about that which we cannot influence.

If the universe always existed or was randomly created 14.7 billion years ago in a big bang or was created by God 6 thousand years ago, it has no effect on Timmens drafting strategy or Gaineys contract offers to Theo and Ryder. It has no influence on the things that really matter or can be influenced.

Should Dagenais be played on the second line with Ribeiro or should Locke be promoted to the Hab's? Those are the questions that are puzzeling philisophers.

[Polarice]

If God created everything, who created God?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

polarice said:

If God created everything, who created God?

It doesn't matter.