Anyone have any ideas what there was before there was time and space?

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? just empty space that goes on forever?

You will go mad trying to comprehend that.

reminds me of a line I read in a book where some old lady believed the universe rested on the back of a giant turtle. Someone asked her what the turtle was standing on, and she replied "good try son, it's turtles all the way down" :D

This might be of interest, Trav.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_and_the_.22Big_Bang.22

if you didnt see that yet

www.icarus5.com

Trav, I've been thinking about that one since I was very young, I don't think we'll ever figure it out for sure. Its likely however that the universe is just a loop anyways and if you traveled off in one direction you would eventually end up back at the same spot. There is no "outside" of the universe. At least thats one good theory.

I think we're simply incapable of thinking about it because we are only able to perceive (arguably) 4 dimensions. If you only existed as a two dimensional figure, you wouldnt have any concept of how a 3 dimensional universe operates. Now what if the universe operates in hundreds of dimensions, possibly infinite dimensions? What then?

Maybe the universe isn't infinite; maybe we just keep walking in circles.

Just my 3 cents.

It has to be infinite though, there can be no other way, because at the edge of infinity there has to be something, even if its nothing.

:@@:

Maybe, maybe not. Something to ponder: If you were walking around in a big circle, so big you didn't even notice the turn, you'd probably say you were walking in an infiitely long straight lie. The problem is the inadequacy of your perception.The universe could be just as round as the earth, but the curve is in a dimension we cannot comprehend.

Just my 3 cents.

Two adult universes had sex, and a few months later our universe was born. That's why they call it the big bang.

Two adult universes had sex, and a few months later our universe was born. That's why they call it the big bang.
Boo! Hiss!

And Trav, the "Turtles all the way down" comment comes from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.

Maybe, maybe not. Something to ponder: If you were walking around in a big circle, so big you didn't even notice the turn, you'd probably say you were walking in an infiitely long straight lie. The problem is the inadequacy of your perception.The universe could be just as round as the earth, but the curve is in a dimension we cannot comprehend.

Just my 3 cents.

if the universe were a sphere that means it would have to have an edge, since no shape can be defined without edges. There would have to be something beyond that edge, even if it was nothing.

Imagine looking at the universe on a quantum level. What you would see is a rapidly shifting field of information encoded in quantum states, like a grid. That information determines what we see at a macro level. Now imagine that the field is infinitely long, i.e. it has no boundaries, no edge. It just keeps going and going. Imagine keeping going through the field. Eventually, all that quantum information will start repeating itself, because it simply cannot keep being random. At that point, if you looked around, you'd find yourself back where you started. If you were to keep going, you'd find patterns emerging in the field of information. The universe does not have to have a shape at all.

Before time? The words we use to describe time are linear terms because that's how we perceive time to be. That doesn't mean that's how time is. Similarly, your terms "sphere", "shape" and "edges" describe three dimensional things, because that's how we all see the world. In a multi-dimensional universe, such terms have little bearing on reality, and don't serve well to describe it. Whatever the true description of the universe might be, I don't think we have the words to describe it.

Exactly Vile. Just what I was trying to say, but yours is more lucid.

As we all probably know, space and time are one. There is no center of the universe. our universe is expanding at a more rapid pace, giving evidence to dark matter. It all depends on how much dark matter is out there, it will either rip apart our galaxy, thinning it until nothing is close enough to each other to conduct heat and create stars... or the galaxy will win and collapse back on itself, causing the "big crunch" as some call it. Some astronomers theorize that the galaxy could have been created before this current cycle, went through the big bang, and then the big crunch, starting another explosion, or big bang. We could be on an infinite cycle.

But to answer your question, I would theorize before time and space there was only cool hydrogen and interstellar dust, floating aimlessly in a dimensionless void.

What was there before time?

Mel Brooks.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazing_saddles/blazing_saddles_hello.jpg

But to answer your question, I would theorize before time and space there was only cool hydrogen and interstellar dust, floating aimlessly in a dimensionless void.
How does something like hydrogen and interstellar dust, being three dimensional, float in a dimensionless void? What is a dimensionless void?

How does something like hydrogen and interstellar dust, being three dimensional, float in a dimensionless void? What is a dimensionless void?

Good point, and it's not a question that I can answer. I don't personally think that nothing is possible, there always has to be something. This is probably something that we will never know the answer to.

Before time? The words we use to describe time are linear terms because that's how we perceive time to be. That doesn't mean that's how time is. Similarly, your terms "sphere", "shape" and "edges" describe three dimensional things, because that's how we all see the world. In a multi-dimensional universe, such terms have little bearing on reality, and don't serve well to describe it. Whatever the true description of the universe might be, I don't think we have the words to describe it.

This is very true. Consider, for example, that we speak of waves and particles in looking at the constituent parts of the universe. Originally when physicists started investigating light they noticed that it had properties that seemed to be of the same sort as waves in water exhibit. This led to the theory of ether, because the waves had to be waves in some medium. We looked at waves as being entirely different from particles, which were little chunks of matter. Now, of course, we realize that matter and energy are interchangeable, and that which properties are expressed is determined by the circumstances. We are still stuck with the vocabulary of waves and particles, because we don't have a better vocabulary and we are still trying to make analogies to the familiar. The problem is that the real rules of the quantum mechanical universe are not much like anything in our daily experienced world, and so the analogies we make are poor and may actually hinder our understanding.

if anyone can articulate the 4th dimension in human terms it will be pagan.

who says interstellar dust is three dimensional?

It is entirely possible that things can exist with NO dimensions.

noting can be nothing

who says interstellar dust is three dimensional?

It is entirely possible that things can exist with NO dimensions.
I don't think so. Technically "no dimension" means exactly that--nothing. So by saying "dimensionless void", you mean "nothing". Whatever your idea of interstellar dust is, if it exists in a "dimensionless void" (an ontological impossibility), then it is not a "dimensionless void".

Conversely, if your idea of a "dimensionless void" is not really "nothing", then it begs the question of what contains it or existed before it, where it came from, etc.

if there was a void it would ahve to exist in some dimension

if anyone can articulate the 4th dimension in human terms it will be pagan.

Thanks...I think. :D

You're welcome :D

noting can be nothing

That's rather similar to "Nature abhors a vacuum"...it certainly seems to be true. "somethingness" seems to be heavily favored over "nothingness" in the universe that we're familiar with. Whether this is due to the nature of reality, or the limits of our perceptive abilities is something we may never know for certain. It may just be that the "nothing" part of the universe is immune to our attempts to detect it.

Could be that there are endless stacks of black holes creating universes at their exhaust ports.
Our universe is expanding because we are in the exhaust of a black hole and also have black holes in our universe exhausting to another universe, etc.etc. :@@:

We are told that black holes consume and compact matter. Could be that it expands when expelled. Thus, the expanding universe.

But to answer your question, I would theorize before time and space there was only cool hydrogen and interstellar dust, floating aimlessly in a dimensionless void.

That doesn't answer the question, Decka. What was there before the cool hydrogen and interstellar dust. It is impossible to envision a time before anythng.

Obviously there was never a nothingness, or there would be nothing now.

Which leads to the concept of God, a being that existed before time and that created the universe.

Which leads to the concept of God, a being that existed before time and that created the universe.

Yes, and there is the possibility that we would be surprised at what we are actually calling god.

Which leads to the concept of God, a being that existed before time and that created the universe.

I think it has led to that concept, but must it?

The concept of "before time" really makes little sense, but suppose there existed a being that lived outside the flow of time as we understand it. How would we know of its existence? Such a creature would be beyond our perception, and completely inaccessible to us. This creature, by being outside of time, would also be outside of our universe, and would, in a very real sense, exist only in our imaginations.

Also, why must this being who lives outside of our present abilities to comprehend, be responsible for the "creation" of the known universe? Isn't it just as likely that such a creature would simply be another denizen of the cosmos like us?

Also, why must this being who lives outside of our present abilities to comprehend, be responsible for the "creation" of the known universe?

If you wish to explain a particular event you look at all the hypotheses and pick the one that if true would provide the best explanation.

If you were standing in a field and heard a bang in the forest and turned to your companion and said, "What caused that bang?", and he answered, "Nothing caused it.", you would not believe him. Every effect has a cause and something had to have caused that effect.

The Kalam argument as formulated by al Ghazali in the 11th century still holds true today. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe had a cause.

Since the universe could not have caused itself to exist something other than it must have caused it to come into existence. I choose to call that something God.

You also choose to believe all the hype surrounding God, the scripture, the belief system, the Jesus, the sins, the moral code, all things that have zero basis in reality. That's a problem. If you were standing in that field, heard that bang, and instead of "Nothing," you heard a explanation on par with Dianetics, you'd be just as skeptical.

What sort of question is "What was there before time?" Using the term "before" means you'd be placing some sense of time within this "lack of time." The simplest answer is that time lacks the standard beginning and end that our mortal existence tells us exists.

Ergo, the universe had a cause.
Lavoisier must be spinning in his grave with a copy of his "Law of Conservation of Mass"

To say matter can be neither created nor destroyed is to say that matter always existed. I find that concept harder to believe than the idea that God created matter.

Others are free to believe as they wish but, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:2, 15).

Anyone have any ideas what there was before there was time and space?

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? just empty space that goes on forever?

You will go mad trying to comprehend that.

reminds me of a line I read in a book where some old lady believed the universe rested on the back of a giant turtle. Someone asked her what the turtle was standing on, and she replied "good try son, it's turtles all the way down" :D "The known is finite,the unknown infinite, intelletually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)

Also, why must this being who lives outside of our present abilities to comprehend, be responsible for the "creation" of the known universe?

If you wish to explain a particular event you look at all the hypotheses and pick the one that if true would provide the best explanation.

If you were standing in a field and heard a bang in the forest and turned to your companion and said, "What caused that bang?", and he answered, "Nothing caused it.", you would not believe him. Every effect has a cause and something had to have caused that effect.

The Kalam argument as formulated by al Ghazali in the 11th century still holds true today. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Ergo, the universe had a cause.

Since the universe could not have caused itself to exist something other than it must have caused it to come into existence. I choose to call that something God.

A creator only becomes necessary because our linear perception of time suggests that time progresses infinitely into the future, and infinitely back into the past. While there is much evidence to suggest that the universe came into existence with the Big Bang some billions of years ago, we have no idea if time came into existence with that event, or it that event occurred within the flow of time. If time itself didn't exist "before" the creation event, cause-and-effect would be meaningless.

To say matter can be neither created nor destroyed is to say that matter always existed. I find that concept harder to believe than the idea that God created matter.
So rather than using the observable physical world to explain the physical world, you make up fairy tales. Sensible.

Since the universe could not have caused itself to exist something other than it must have caused it to come into existence. I choose to call that something God.
I read an interesting hypothesis once which pretty much stated that the immense energy and matter contained within the Big Bang, it curved the fabric of time around so much that the Big Bang ultimately caused itself. And that wasn't science fiction; whomever wrote it had calculations and so forth to back that hypothesis up. I honestly can't tell you where I read this or who wrote it, however. It was a few years ago.

It is hard to imagine that the universe has been exanding and collapsing on itself in an endless cycle for all eterninty, and will continue to do so, it has just always been so. That there was never a time when it wasnt happening, that there could never be a point when it was not happening. And all of the civilizations and universes that have come and gone.

To decide that times begins with nothing is just as arbitrary as deciding that it begins with god. However, the appeals are quite different. The former leaves the ethical implications and all other metaphysical questions completely open (those being not the concern of science in any case). The latter may not, and often does not.

I use faith to explain the formation of the universe. Evakian seems to be using quantum physics. "If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum phsics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being." (L. Strobel)

what came first, the universe or quantum physics?

Why is it so difficult for people to say "I don't know" to this question? Cause the reality is that that is the only correct answer to the question. No one knows the answer to the question, so anyone who does is FoS.

And those of you who use the "I don't know" response to prove the existance of a god are similarly jumping the gun. That's the same sort of logic that led ancient people to say "Why is it flooding?" and answer that question with "Because there is a pantheon of gods living on the clouds above us and when we do something they don't like, they dump buckets of water on our civilization."

When I was a kid, I used to look up at the heavens at night and imagine it was all just a huge black blanket with tiny little holes punched thru it. On the other side of the sheet was heaven, brightly shining thru to make what looked like stars.

I think my version makes about as much sense as some of these grandiose 'theories' around here.

;)
SMW

Why is it so difficult for people to say "I don't know" to this question? Cause the reality is that that is the only correct answer to the question. No one knows the answer to the question, so anyone who does is FoS.

And those of you who use the "I don't know" response to prove the existance of a god are similarly jumping the gun. That's the same sort of logic that led ancient people to say "Why is it flooding?" and answer that question with "Because there is a pantheon of gods living on the clouds above us and when we do something they don't like, they dump buckets of water on our civilization."Post of the day!:drinktoth

Why is it so difficult for people to say "I don't know" to this question? Cause the reality is that that is the only correct answer to the question. No one knows the answer to the question, so anyone who does is FoS.

And those of you who use the "I don't know" response to prove the existance of a god are similarly jumping the gun. That's the same sort of logic that led ancient people to say "Why is it flooding?" and answer that question with "Because there is a pantheon of gods living on the clouds above us and when we do something they don't like, they dump buckets of water on our civilization."


Some people enjoy thinking past the "I dont know" answer. I find it fascinating to try and comprehend what there was before the big bang. I know it is impossible, but still, it's interesting. Besides, if we just say we do not know we may never learn anything.

Some people enjoy thinking past the "I dont know" answer. I find it fascinating to try and comprehend what there was before the big bang. I know it is impossible, but still, it's interesting. Besides, if we just say we do not know we may never learn anything.

Feel free to contemplate and investigate. My problem is with those people who have formed some sort of belief without there being any information.

Well if there is no information you can believe whatever you want and no one can tell you you are wrong.

Well if there is no information you can believe whatever you want and no one can tell you you are wrong.

Yep, thank you for articulating the founding principle of Christianity.

again, you can not prove it isn't true

'before time' is a meaningless statement. like the sound of one hand clapping.

one hand clapping makes a sound

There was obviously SOMETHING before the big bang. I would say it was hydrogen gas, which slowly reacted with other atoms of hydrogen gas, creating more gravity, and pretty soon there was a central core of incredibly hot, radiating, heavily dense gases. The big bang didn't just happen, there was an incredible buildup. That is why I sometimes question that time and space are directly related.

one hand clapping makes a sound
Every time I hear that phrase, I clap my right hand and think, "What kind of idiot made that up?"

Leper,

I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove the Big Bang Theory. That is why my acceptance of the existence of God is based on faith, an ability to believe something without having it proven.

It seems that believing a certain set of suppositions without proof is okay but believing a different set of suppositions is not okay.

While the fact that you do not believe in God saddens me it does not make me think less of you. I doubt the opposite can be said. Non-believers seem to have this almost pathological need to convince believers that they are wrong and somohow less intelligent to boot.

Leper,

I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove the Big Bang Theory. That is why my acceptance of the existence of God is based on faith, an ability to believe something without having it proven.

It seems that believing a certain set of suppositions without proof is okay but believing a different set of suppositions is not okay.

While the fact that you do not believe in God saddens me it does not make me think less of you. I doubt the opposite can be said. Non-believers seem to have this almost pathological need to convince believers that they are wrong and somohow less intelligent to boot.
But there is a difference. The Big Bang Theory is falsifiable, scientific, and backed up by evidence (though it is by no means the end-all be-all of what happened). The existence of a god is not falsifiable, not scientific, and not backed up by anything except thought experiments. (Mind you, I don't think there's anything wrong with believing in a god; my point is that trying to compare a scientific theory with a religious one is like comparing apples and oranges.) Moreover, you do realize that the Big Bang Theory and the existence of god are not mutually exclusive, don't you?

I don't think the Big Bang Theory is falsifiable. We never see things coming into existence out of nothingness. Spontaneous generation does not take place. Maggots are not generated spontaneously from the odor of rotting meat. No one worries when he leaves the house that while he is gone an elephant will spontaneously appear in his living room popping up from nothing. It has never happened.

I don't think the Big Bang Theory is falsifiable. We never see things coming into existence out of nothingness. Spontaneous generation does not take place. Maggots are not generated spontaneously from the odor of rotting meat. No one worries when he leaves the house that while he is gone an elephant will spontaneously appear in his living room popping up from nothing. It has never happened.
But we don't know what caused the Big Bang, that's the thing. It popping up randomly is only one hypothesis, and moreover, it's not a very commonly adhered to one. It's possible that Big Bangs have been happening every few billion years for an infinite time, and will continue to happen infinitely.

If you can accept the premise that the universe is eternal and uncaused why can't you accept the possibility that God is eternal and uncaused?

If you can accept the premise that the universe is eternal and uncaused why can't you accept the possibility that God is eternal and uncaused?
Because I have seen no evidence for a god, at least not one that meddles in our affairs at the moment. I can accept a creator god, but that's not something I subscribe to.

Spontaneous generation does not take place. Maggots are not generated spontaneously from the odor of rotting meat. No one worries when he leaves the house that while he is gone an elephant will spontaneously appear in his living room popping up from nothing. It has never happened.

Except maybe....In the beginning...?

explosions just don't "happen"..someone has to light the fuse.. or in this case, lots of gas has to gather in a small area and build up billions of degrees of heat and energy.

Leper,

I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove the Big Bang Theory. That is why my acceptance of the existence of God is based on faith, an ability to believe something without having it proven.

It seems that believing a certain set of suppositions without proof is okay but believing a different set of suppositions is not okay.

I understand what faith is: the belief in something you have no evidence for believing. That's not something I accept in my life. In fact, if there were "sins" in my life, one would be to base a belief on "faith."

As for the Big Bang theory, it's not something I have a "belief" in. However, it has more support than the belief in God. That is, the observation has been made that the universe is expanding. Thus, the proposition that the universe is expanding from one small area has some logical support. Not so with God. God is based on, as you say, "faith."

While the fact that you do not believe in God saddens me it does not make me think less of you. I doubt the opposite can be said.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but I doubt what you're saying. At least, every Christian I've met tends to shy away from "sinners" like myself. No, most don't completely shun me, but I don't shun Christians either....unless they're trying to convert me or using Christianity as a basis for disregarding damage to the environment.

However, I would concede that I do think less of a person for believing a divine god, as I regard it as a fundamental error in your thinking. However, I can't say I'm friends with anyone who is an acknowledged atheist (a couple of agnostics, but mostly Christian), so it's not something I regard as a controlling issue in my overall opinion of a person. I probably regard a "believer" in a similar manner as Christians regard sinners.

Non-believers seem to have this almost pathological need to convince believers that they are wrong and somohow less intelligent to boot.

I don't see Atheists making "missions" to Africa to convert godful pygmies. Who's pathological here?

explosions just don't "happen"..someone has to light the fuse.. or in this case, lots of gas has to gather in a small area and build up billions of degrees of heat and energy.

Not all explosions require heat and/or energy input.

pressure alone could cause it

But what causes pressure?

That question aside, we know it was a gaseous explosion which was billions of degrees hot and blasted out gamma radiation across the cosmos.

There had to be something to be compressed.

No matter how you try to slice it the universe is not eternal and had to have had a beginning. Any event, including the beginning of the universe has to have a cause. You can call the cause anything you want. I call it God.

There had to be something to be compressed.

No matter how you try to slice it the universe is not eternal and had to have had a beginning. Any event, including the beginning of the universe has to have a cause. You can call the cause anything you want. I call it God.

If the beginning of the universe did have a cause, God is as good a name as any for it.

I understand what faith is: the belief in something you have no evidence for believing. That's not something I accept in my life. In fact, if there were "sins" in my life, one would be to base a belief on "faith."

As for the Big Bang theory, it's not something I have a "belief" in. However, it has more support than the belief in God. That is, the observation has been made that the universe is expanding. Thus, the proposition that the universe is expanding from one small area has some logical support. Not so with God. God is based on, as you say, "faith."



I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but I doubt what you're saying. At least, every Christian I've met tends to shy away from "sinners" like myself. No, most don't completely shun me, but I don't shun Christians either....unless they're trying to convert me or using Christianity as a basis for disregarding damage to the environment.

However, I would concede that I do think less of a person for believing a divine god, as I regard it as a fundamental error in your thinking. However, I can't say I'm friends with anyone who is an acknowledged atheist (a couple of agnostics, but mostly Christian), so it's not something I regard as a controlling issue in my overall opinion of a person. I probably regard a "believer" in a similar manner as Christians regard sinners.



I don't see Atheists making "missions" to Africa to convert godful pygmies. Who's pathological here?

Nicely said, Leper.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but I doubt what you're saying. At least, every Christian I've met tends to shy away from "sinners" like myself. No, most don't completely shun me, but I don't shun Christians either....unless they're trying to convert me or using Christianity as a basis for disregarding damage to the environment.

However, I would concede that I do think less of a person for believing a divine god, as I regard it as a fundamental error in your thinking. However, I can't say I'm friends with anyone who is an acknowledged atheist (a couple of agnostics, but mostly Christian), so it's not something I regard as a controlling issue in my overall opinion of a person. I probably regard a "believer" in a similar manner as Christians regard sinners.


I guess I'm an abomination then. I don't use faith (or lack thereof) in a supreme being as ANY sort of basis for what I think of a person.

Of course... Mama always said I was a bit "different".