Big bang cosmology

It's not that I just don't think something can come from nothing. I have no clue how I would even observe that. I would presumably have to be seeing (literally) space, but space is something. I don't know what something coming from nothing actually means. I can only conceptualize things that I've seen in movies - as in, a fireball appearing magically out of thin air, for instance. But this isn't what these people are insinuating, I don't think.

They may just be talking about an event which has no cause, or, at least, no natural cause. And that is not impossible. At least, not logically impossible.

I can't make the aire of mysticism disappear, nor do I care to. Existence beyond time and space is a simple proposition for philosophical discussion. It's not God, not "the ground of all being" in any sacred or divine sense. It's only existence.
Samm

Your post did sound disrespectfull though. Especially this bit:

There is a SOURCE which exists outside time and space and creates the universe? There is existence outside space-time. (See my answers to the first two questions above.) The ultimate explanation for the existence of anything and everything must derive from this existence that has no beginning or end and requires no explanation for its own being. (It simply is, always.) Thus, existence outside of time may be called "the source" of all other states of being, or of all the universes that may arise. It has also been called the Absolute, spirit, the Pattern-Imposing Force, primal being, and so on. "The source" is a fairly accurate description of what it is and does. It's not a mystical being, nothing supernatural, quite the opposite really. It's only that we are not familiar with the concept of existence beyond all dimension, in a time before times and a place beyond places.Samm

I am puzzled by the vehemence with which one claims that such a notion is not fundamentally mystical or religious. Plato and Aristotle just regarded the universe as eternal itself. I suppose the big bang concept of which they were unaware makes us search for some other concept since the universe itself does not appear to be eternal. Creation of a new eternal concept and labeling it the Source does not really seem to gain anything in terms of its explanatory power or our understanding of the world of experience. It just pushes the question back one more level.
Where did the Source come from? It just is.
All systems of thought require at least one axiom which is just accepted.
This seems to be yours but in terms of its rational or metaphysical status it lies at the same level as another man's "god".

From Wikipedia the Cosmological Argument
Aristotle also put forth the idea of a First Cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover
Plato also posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work Timaeus. For Plato, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create ex nihilo (out of nothing). It was only able to organize the ananke (necessity), the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony.
Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274 CE), probably the best-known theologian of Medieval Europe, His conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, which he asserted was God. End of Wikipedia

Which was by the way eternal, outside time and space, immutable and without cause and beyond human comprehension.

I fail to see how the metaphysical concept of a Source avoids the same problems as the cosmological arguments for God. In fact it is worse because you are not making a claim that the source is the reason for the order, rationality and comprehensibility of our universe.

prothero,

Plato and Aristotle were gifted minds for their time, but they lived near the dawn of human understanding and had nothing like the resources of understanding that we have today. They should be read to appreciate how well they did with what they had, but they have nothing upon which we can base our philosophical arguments upon today.
Samm

You say, "Creation of a new eternal concept and labeling it the Source does not really seem to gain anything in terms of its explanatory power or our understanding of the world of experience. It just pushes the question back one more level. Where did the Source come from? It just is."

(1) The universe is not eternal and in fact had a specific beginning.

(2) Time and space began with the universe according to big bang theory.

(3) Something (the space-time universe) cannot come from nothing.

(4) Therefore, something had to have existed before the universe, AND

(5) The universe came from that something.

If you will address my proposition instead of talking about Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, maybe we can do some philosophy.

Samm

(1) The universe is not eternal and in fact had a specific beginning.

(2) Time and space began with the universe according to big bang theory.

(3) Something (the space-time universe) cannot come from nothing.

(4) Therefore, something had to have existed before the universe, AND

(5) The universe came from that something.

If you will address my proposition instead of talking about Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, maybe we can do some philosophy.

Samm

The standard objections

1. Where did that something come from? Why is the first cause exempt from needing a cause? Because you define it as so?

2. It is a Casual argument. The rules of causality only make sense in a world of time and space. The notion of causality is derived from inductive experience it can not be derived a priori deductively.(see Hume)

3. One gains nothing by the notion over the notion that the big bang itself is the first cause (Occam's razor for competing hypotheses).

4. The possibility of something to exist does not mean that it in fact does exist.

At least in the traditional cosmological argument the First Cause has attributes and influence on the world thus created or caused. In your version I fail to see what the utility of the concept is at all except as a non-comprehensible answer to a non comprehensible question.
What cause the universe? I do not know but it must have had a cause?
Lets call it "something".

From Wikipedia:


The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
   
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
   
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
   
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
   

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation. End Wiki


Your argument is essentially a restatement of the cosmological argument (minus the word god) and the validity and utility of that argument has been debated extensively in the religious and philosophical literature.

The thing of interest would be what the "properties" or "attributes" of "that something" would be and how it would influence the nature of "our world of experience".

intensification beginning from a simplest of all possible states to the singularity, and a point of infinite density. The driving force was itself Absolute, but the solution provides definitions that I'm not going into here.

The thinking reflected in the statement that 'this is a supernatural religious discussion pretending to be a philosophical discussion,' fails to take into account that philosophy is boundless. There are no restrictions on what may be talked about or what way they may be talked about. Furthermore, philosophy and science are not the same thing. When Immanuel Kant wrote his 'Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Might Be Brought Forth as a Science,' he was not using the term 'science' in the ordinary sense. For him, metaphysics could only be said to be at the level of a science if it could put forth propositions that were universal and objectively valid, and a priori. The 'a priori' here is itself an issue. What does it mean? It means that the propositions must be arrived at through pure reason, and not mixed up with anything empirical. Thus, materialists, who give value only to science and what science can give 'concrete' proof to, are naturally inclined to shun all metaphysical speculation. And since this is a metaphysical thread, I welcome such statements as above, for they reflect the sharp division in thinking between two opposing camps. Such divisions often result in any philosophical discussions, especially when the subject reaches to the limits of philosophical speculation. The reason I tackle things from a Kantian perspective is because at least Kant understood that speculative philosophy, for it to amount to anything, must consist only of propositions that cannot be contradicted, and also, only if the propositions or speculations it puts forth, can help us make rational sense of the world of experience. With respect to and regardless of the post from which the above quote was taken, I think metaphysics can obtain to such a level, and I think this is what this thread is all about. The problem is simple for me: Metaphysics has never before in the past, and still has not to our present day, reached the level of a science, according to Kant. Were such a science as Kant spoke of ever realized, it might inspire some hot debate in this same regard, and really set materialists and spiritualists at each others throats.

prothero,

Plato and Aristotle were gifted minds for their time, but they lived near the dawn of human understanding and had nothing like the resources of understanding that we have today. They should be read to appreciate how well they did with what they had, but they have nothing upon which we can base our philosophical arguments upon today. Ptolemy said the world was flat, but I cannot claim a flat world as a premise for an argument today. If we like an idea of Plato or Aristotle, we must re-state it on the foundation of current science and understanding.

You say, "Creation of a new eternal concept and labeling it the Source does not really seem to gain anything in terms of its explanatory power or our understanding of the world of experience. It just pushes the question back one more level. Where did the Source come from? It just is."

Firstly, I did not label it the Source. Someone else here introduced that term. I only use it in response to them and, after all, that IS what it is, a source from which the universe comes. But now, if you don't like my reasoning in developing the idea of this existence from which the universe came, please tell me which of these general steps in that development you find to be unacceptable propositions (or outright false statements).

(1) The universe is not eternal and in fact had a specific beginning.

(2) Time and space began with the universe according to big bang theory.

(3) Something (the space-time universe) cannot come from nothing.

(4) Therefore, something had to have existed before the universe, AND

(5) The universe came from that something.

If you will address my proposition instead of talking about Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, maybe we can do some philosophy.

Samm

I've posted something similar in a similar thread. Here goes: Space time and mass and even consciousness are universal concepts. They can be used to explain what took place before the big bang. The big bang was not the first and last event from which our universe arose. The universe arose from an intensifying series of expanding and cotracting stages (stages of expansion and collapse). Each stage intensified from a point approximating an absolute void (but this void still contined the potential that lead to our universe) and incrementally (if i could use the word) intensified through each successive stage within this series to a point of absolute intensity ... and to the absolute or the infinite density contained in the singularity that began our universe. The only driving force that could account for the "Ultimate Cause" of such an intensifying series is the Absolute itself. Take away everything in the universe and there is an Absolute. It is not simply nothing. The absolute is just as the first post that began this thread mentions: It is eternal, immutable, it can never cease to exist, it is if you like ... spirit ... or it is the eternal, indivisible quality from which all that now exists has adopted or taken its form, including our very beings. To call this God would not be a mistake I think, but we lack an adequate, or rational explanation as to just what we mean by 'God.' I think the idea of the Absolute does add some meaning to this idea. It also points the way to an explanation that might be able to account for what prompted the big bang.

This thread is becoming circular and is failing to address the real challenge. No one is prepared to actualy say how they see the circumstances before the BB. I know we dont know but be inventive, try to imagine what could possible instigate or produce this BB.

Ive told you what i feel it was, a concentrated mass of energy so strong that time nor space could escape, so it appears as nothing, it was nothing. There was no before, the only question is how do we fit into the scale of this event, why now. You cant say what instigated it because there was no time for anything to instigate it. I believe nothing and everything are the same. Its pretty damned hard to get your head round but there is no other explaination.

Yep, you can make make up all the stories you want, and i don` t have to take you seriously at all. I merely need to ask what evidence do you have? It is quite common for physics professors get emails from cracks like yourself with no understanding of physics, and start making large claims about what happen before the bb. You actually need to know a bit of theoritical physics before you talk big.

I still like the colliding M branes and the 11 dimensions of M theory (to infinity and beyond).

What a nasty superior fool you are, tell me oh great one how your knowledge can exclude my proposition? No dont bother, i cant be bothered with arrogance such as yours.

I am not arrogant. I am telling you the facts. You don` t know anything about physics, and you talk about the bb. You are not alone. There plenty of people like yourselfs that email to physics professors in physics departments all over the country, and claim that they have a "theory of everything". In fact, you are such a genius that you don` t even use math. You write long ass essay about your speculations. That is great. Keep up the good work.