• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pre-Big Bang

In another thread, Sherlock states that “I'm quite convinced though that a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe is a logical impossibility, science, mathematical laws, matter, energy can't really take part in an explanation for themselves, this is blindingly obvious - to me.”

Except that what is blindingly obvious to Sherlock is not so to physicists who study and research the matter. As such, here are various readings that give some SCIENTIFIC theories as to the pre-Bang state at that time.

What happened before the Big Bang: What Happened Before the Big Bang? | Live Science

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space

What Came Before the Big Bang? | Discover Magazine

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space | EarthSky


Yes, a LOT of scientists disagree with Sherlock.

Those are at best hypotheses, not theories, as they have zero supporting evidence.
 
Let us return to the Big Bang.
 
Those are at best hypotheses, not theories, as they have zero supporting evidence.

Not according to the scientists who have done the research. Sorry, but I will tend to believe them over you.
 
Not according to the scientists who have done the research. Sorry, but I will tend to believe them over you.

Except your links are pop science bull****, not peer reviewed papers, so you are getting the words of the scientists. You’re getting the words of journalists trying to drive ad revenue.
 
Except your links are pop science bull****, not peer reviewed papers, so you are getting the words of the scientists. You’re getting the words of journalists trying to drive ad revenue.

They are accurately stating the conclusions of the scientists who have done research in this area. Yes, they "dumb it down" a bit for the readers who are not necessarily scientists themselves, but that doesn't make any of it untrue with respect to what the scientists have shown through evidence. It's certainly better than the material that Tosca has been presenting, which is nothing more than the LAY OPINION of one person, which he himself admits. He may be a very competent research chemists, but he has done ZERO scientific research into evolution.
 
They are accurately stating the conclusions of the scientists who have done research in this area. Yes, they "dumb it down" a bit for the readers who are not necessarily scientists themselves, but that doesn't make any of it untrue with respect to what the scientists have shown through evidence. It's certainly better than the material that Tosca has been presenting, which is nothing more than the LAY OPINION of one person, which he himself admits. He may be a very competent research chemists, but he has done ZERO scientific research into evolution.

Those are not "conclusions". Those are suppositions and they don't have any evidence to back any of them up. There is no evidence of anything until factions of a second AFTER the Big Bang already started.
 
Those are not "conclusions". Those are suppositions and they don't have any evidence to back any of them up. There is no evidence of anything until factions of a second AFTER the Big Bang already started.

It depends by what you mean by "evidence". They certainly use their knowledge of physics to present suppositions, but they don't just say "I believe this or I believe that". They do indeed present what they have as evidence that their particular scenario could have happened. And by "anything", you mean this particular universe. What was there before? That's what they are looking at.
 
It depends by what you mean by "evidence". They certainly use their knowledge of physics to present suppositions, but they don't just say "I believe this or I believe that". They do indeed present what they have as evidence that their particular scenario could have happened. And by "anything", you mean this particular universe. What was there before? That's what they are looking at.
So, at best we have an educated guess, so to speak? I think you would agree that this falls surprisingly close to the definition of a hypothesis.
 
So, at best we have an educated guess, so to speak? I think you would agree that this falls surprisingly close to the definition of a hypothesis.


No disagreement there. They are indeed hypotheses based on evidence as they see it.
 
It depends by what you mean by "evidence". They certainly use their knowledge of physics to present suppositions, but they don't just say "I believe this or I believe that". They do indeed present what they have as evidence that their particular scenario could have happened. And by "anything", you mean this particular universe. What was there before? That's what they are looking at.

There is no evidence. They cannot look further back than a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang already started. Before that point, physics breaks down and equations start putting out gibberish answers.
 
No disagreement there. They are indeed hypotheses based on evidence as they see it.

They are not based on evidence. Evidence is what allows hypotheses to turn into theories. These are straight un-evidenced suppositions.
 
There is no evidence. They cannot look further back than a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang already started. Before that point, physics breaks down and equations start putting out gibberish answers.

I'm not sure what your point is here. They are scientists doing research and coming up with hypotheses based on what they know about physics and the universe. Would you have them stop doing so? Science is about continuing to learn about the universe. I see that as a good thing.
 
I'm not sure what your point is here. They are scientists doing research and coming up with hypotheses based on what they know about physics and the universe. Would you have them stop doing so? Science is about continuing to learn about the universe. I see that as a good thing.

Where have I said anything about stopping? I’m correcting your false statements that there are theories and evidence of what fake before the Big Bang. There isn’t and that’s not what scientists are saying. They are hypothesizing, but people should understand those hypotheses do not have evidence to support them.
 
Where have I said anything about stopping? I’m correcting your false statements that there are theories and evidence of what fake before the Big Bang. There isn’t and that’s not what scientists are saying. They are hypothesizing, but people should understand those hypotheses do not have evidence to support them.


The information was presented as an antithesis to those who are claiming that not knowing what happened prior to the Big Bang is somehow evidence that there is a God. It's not. just because we don't know what there was before the Big Bang does not mean that we (humans using science) should not keep seeking.
 
The information was presented as an antithesis to those who are claiming that not knowing what happened prior to the Big Bang is somehow evidence that there is a God. It's not. just because we don't know what there was before the Big Bang does not mean that we (humans using science) should not keep seeking.

Correct, we should keep seeking, but you should also not be claiming that definitive answers exist. The correct answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is “we don’t know, and might not ever know”.
 
Nitpicking:


The word "before" in the sense that we know it is logically absurd when used in relation to existence.

At the big bang, all energy existed at a mathematical point. (I put it that way because mass is only an emergent quality of energy).

At the big bang, the statement "there are dimensions" is false. (Note: "are" refers to a present. This is a flaw in this post).

At a different* point, the statement "there is time (the 4th large dimension)" is true. At all points after that point in the dimension we call time, temporal terms like "before" and "after" and "now" are rational.

There is not a "from" or a "before" in the sense that we understand it in English or any other human language.


__________
* Bit of a problem, that. It is because it is ("I am that I am"?), and that's a deep as you can drill.
 
Last edited:
Correct, we should keep seeking, but you should also not be claiming that definitive answers exist. The correct answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is “we don’t know, and might not ever know”.


No one said that definitive answer exist. Except the theists who claim that God absolutely exists.
 
Nitpicking:


The word "before" in the sense that we know it is logically absurd when used in relation to existence.

At the big bang, all energy existed at a mathematical point. (I put it that way because mass is only an emergent quality of energy).

At the big bang, the statement "there are dimensions" is false. (Note: "are" refers to a present. This is a flaw in this post).

At a different* point, the statement "there is time (the 4th large dimension)" is true. At all points after that point in the dimension we call time, temporal terms like "before" and "after" and "now" are rational.

There is not a "from" or a "before" in the sense that we understand it in English or any other human language.


__________
* Bit of a problem, that. It is because it is ("I am that I am"?), and that's a deep as you can drill.

Language is an imperfect vehicle, so we do the best we can.
 
No one said that definitive answer exist. Except the theists who claim that God absolutely exists.

Your OP: “ Except that what is blindingly obvious to Sherlock is not so to physicists who study and research the matter. As such, here are various readings that give some SCIENTIFIC theories as to the pre-Bang state at that time.”

No such “theories” exist. And if they did, they hold he definitive answers because that’s how scientific theories work.
 
I'm not sure what your point is here. They are scientists doing research and coming up with hypotheses based on what they know about physics and the universe. Would you have them stop doing so? Science is about continuing to learn about the universe. I see that as a good thing.

At what point does it stop being science and become philosophy? None of the articles you linked to have anything that even resembles a testable hypothesis.
 
Correct, we should keep seeking, but you should also not be claiming that definitive answers exist. The correct answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is “we don’t know, and might not ever know”.

But if we ever do understand the origin of the universe it will be because of science ..not someone blabbering about a god who knows nothing. Think about what science has accomplished in our life time, our modern world with all of its complexity is a result of it.

"We might never know" is the correct answer IMHO. We are but a speck of a speck in terms of whats out there.

I like the way Einstein put it >

Einstein, a scientist put it like this ..he compared the human race to a small child in a library full of books written in unfamiliar languages .The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me said Einstein, is the attitude of the human mind. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly.
 
At what point does it stop being science and become philosophy? None of the articles you linked to have anything that even resembles a testable hypothesis.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Its what moves humanity forward inch by inch through discovery. Philosophy and Theism on the other hand are dated and dead systems of thought ..Science is always moving forward.
 
Back
Top Bottom