Big Bang cannot be caused

[Bookcat]

God created the Universe.

The uncaused cause.

 

[Aloysium]

If time exists, there must be a beginning.
Time is a causally based phenomenon.
There had to have been a primary cause.

Time could be an illusion.
What we perceive may be solely a fountain of being in an everpresent now.
If there is no causal connection between moments then the universe could be eternal.

God is that eternal Fountain of being from which all creation springs, maybe, even multiverses.

 

[o_mlly]

Causality simply means that one state of affair at a specific point causes another state later. So we need at least two points one follows another one to have causation. This is a simple notion of time. Any physical theory deals with causality and needs time. We don’t have any point before Big Bang point hence we cannot have any physical theory which can explain the Big Bang.

We do have a theoretical point in time before the Big Bang. Ex nihilo, super dense matter, the singularity, came into existence and with it, space and time. In the next instant, a first moment of time, the volatile singularity explodes. The cause of the singularity logically must be outside the time-space construct. Believers call this transcendant cause God.

 

[Tomdstone]

If time exists, there must be a beginning.

I don;t see why that follows logically. The real line exists as a mathematical object and there is no beginning to the real line.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ex nihilo, super dense matter, the singularity, came into existence and with it, space and time. In the next instant, a first moment of time, the volatile singularity explodes. The cause of the singularity logically must be outside the time-space construct. Believers call this transcendant cause God.

How do you know that there was not something before the BB?

 

[Aloysium]

I don;t see why that follows logically. The real line exists as a mathematical object and there is no beginning to the real line.

Let’s say the zero point represents this moment, and minus one represents what happened a second ago that results in what happens in this moment; plus one, what happens next.

If there were no starting point, time and the causes of each subsequent moment would go back forever.
So, the primary cause cannot be on the time line because it would take forever to get here.
So, the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
If it does not cause itself to exist, it must be brought into existence by something external to it.

Time is not exactly linear because of the time it takes for things to interact in the vastness of space. We see things that happened billions of years ago when we look into the deep vastness of space. I don’t think there is a cross section of time other than that defined by a mind because of this and the quirkiness of relativity.

At any rate, I think I am heavily influenced by the scientific description of how the universe evolved. As the imagination takes you back in time, the universe shrinks and changes markedly in character. I can no more apply the model of a real line to what has been shown to have been, than I can use a square geometric shape to describe a triangle. Sure, I guess time might be described by a real line but it isn’t. I prefers circles anyway. Time as an endless cycle is more appealing. Disprove that logically.

Sorry for any incoherence and typos. Using my phone.

 

[Tomdstone]

Time as an endless cycle is more appealing. Disprove that logically.

This could be why many adhere to the cyclical theory of the universe.

 

[Tomdstone]

Let’s say the zero point represents this moment, and minus one represents what happened a second ago that results in what happens in this moment; plus one, what happens next.

If there were no starting point, time and the causes of each subsequent moment would go back forever.
So, the primary cause cannot be on the time line because it would take forever to get here. .

You are assuming that there was a primary cause.

 

[Bahman]

What rule of logic has been violated by assuming that the universe existed from all eternity?

It takes infinity to reach from eternal past to now so you could never reach now.

 

[Vico]

Causality simply means that one state of affair at a specific point causes another state later. So we need at least two points one follows another one to have causation. This is a simple notion of time. Any physical theory deals with causality and needs time. We don’t have any point before Big Bang point hence we cannot have any physical theory which can explain the Big Bang.

Time may very well be an illusion (eternalism). In creation, God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence. Creation is not a change or transformation, which would be an actual underlying pre-existent subject that passes from one real state to another real state. Creation includes no motion, and so no successiveness, it is an instantaneous operation. Creation in the passive sense, means term or object of the creative act – the object in its dependence, as an entity, on the Creator, so this dependence is essential.

 

[Bahman]

We do have a theoretical point in time before the Big Bang.

There is no physical point before BB since time emerges from BB.

Ex nihilo, super dense matter, the singularity, came into existence and with it, space and time.

There is no time and space at BB. We can’t have any physical theory which tell us how time could emerge from BB because that means a change for BB and you need time, which you don’t have, to allow changes.

In the next instant, a first moment of time, the volatile singularity explodes.

We know the rest of story after BB.

The cause of the singularity logically must be outside the time-space construct. Believers call this transcendant cause God.

There is absolute void outside space and time. You cannot have God before or outside BB since any intelligible being requires space and time.

 

[Aloysium]

You are assuming that there was a primary cause.

Causality is itself an assumption, as is rationality.
Assuming both, we have discovered pretty much what must have taken place as the universe came into being and developed.
We might differ in how we put it together, but we intuit that it there is a reality behind it.
There is nothing to indicate that change in the universe follows the concept of a real line.
That idea comes about seeing repetitive patterns such as witnessing that day’s follow days.
We conceptualize a day, month and year and go back, thinking of how these patterns went on in history.
But history is “evolutionary” commencing at points where it was created (in my view) and appeared (according to some) and changing, moves forward to a goal or its natural end.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no physical point before BB since time emerges from BB.

Do you have an authoritative source to cite?

There is no time and space at BB. We can’t have any physical theory which tell us how time could emerge from BB because that means a change for BB and you need time, which you don’t have, to allow changes.

Do you have an authoritative source to cite?

We know the rest of story after BB.

No, we do not know. The Big Bang is a theory.

There is absolute void outside space and time. You cannot have God before or outside BB since any intelligible being requires space and time.

Do you have an authoritative source to cite? Are you implying a non-intelligible being does not require space and time?

Your title is a theory about another theory. Declarative sentences without argumentation are gratuitous opinions and may be gratuitously dismissed.

 

[Bahman]

Time may very well be an illusion (eternalism). In creation, God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence…

This is problematic for a timeless God because God is changeless and there is no reference point in which God could create.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . There is absolute void outside space and time. You cannot have God before or outside BB since any intelligible being requires space and time.

I don’t know what you mean by absolute void. I assume you mean nothing, but since it can mean different things, I can understand a reluctance to use it.

God is other than His creation, into which He entered as one of us. God is not restriceted to any particular time and space. He is with us here as He has been and will be. A human being requires time and space. He who created us and all time and space, from one end to the other, from the beginning to the end, each moment existing as an act of loving creation, God does not require time and space. I would suggest you dump your assumption in favour of this one, if you want to understand God.

 

[Aloysium]

This is problematic for a timeless God because God is changeless and there is no reference point in which God could create.

I would suggest you give further thought to the nature of time and what timelessness implies. Your idea of change is related to time. God is eternal. I know the reality can be difficult to express in words, but “there is no reference point in which God could create” is difficult to understand. Again, God is only in time insofar as He is Father to all moments. Eternal, He is in loving relation to His creation, which exists in time.

 

[Vico]

This is problematic for a timeless God because God is changeless and there is no reference point in which God could create.

Eternal God does not need a reference point for God is not subject to His own laws of Creation.

 

[Bahman]

This is a good reading.

Do you have an authoritative source to cite?

Time has started at BB hence there is no physical point before because any physical theory needs time as a variable to state the evolution of state matter.

Do you have an authoritative source to cite?

The BB point is the point that everything has emerged from it, including time and space.

No, we do not know. The Big Bang is a theory.

Yes it theory supported with many observation (read the link for more information).

Do you have an authoritative source to cite? Are you implying a non-intelligible being does not require space and time?

Your title is a theory about another theory. Declarative sentences without argumentation are gratuitous opinions and may be gratuitously dismissed.

I have an argument for it. Knowledge is structured information and information requires form. Any intellectual being needs a space in order to preserve and process information.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t know what you mean by absolute void. I assume you mean nothing, but since it can mean different things, I can understand a reluctance to use it.

God is other than His creation, into which He entered as one of us. God is not restriceted to any particular time and space. He is with us here as He has been and will be. A human being requires time and space. He who created us and all time and space, from one end to the other, from the beginning to the end, each moment existing as an act of loving creation, God does not require time and space. I would suggest you dump your assumption in favour of this one, if you want to understand God.

Any intellectual being need a room in space because knowledge is structured information and information requires a from. No room means no form.

 

[Aloysium]

Any intellectual being need a room in space because knowledge is structured information and information requires a from. No room means no form.

Even taking account the typos and language barrier, this makes no sense to me, sorry.
I’m thinking that a relevant reply is that we are in God’s image, not the other way around.