How can something come from nothing?

[CatSci]

Your just pushing the God question off to infinity.

Not intentionally. And for what its worth, I’m Catholic.

It doesn’t answer anything to say that the universe has been expanding forever.

The Universe has not been expanding forever. If it were, we wouldn’t be here; the inevitable heat death would have already occurred.

A better way to phrase it is: The Universe has been expanding at all points in time.

The thing is: There is a finite amount of time in the past direction.

Expanding from what and to where?

That’s actually a nonsensical question. Since the Universe contains everything that exists, there is not other “things” for which it to expand into.

The expansion, is of the Universe itself. The space between matter is growing. But the Universe is not expanding “into” something.

Unfortunately, the concepts are just not intuitive.

Can an actual infinity exist in a finite universe?

Pi has an infinite amount of digits but we can still create a perfect circle.

But as a quantity of stuff, no you can’t have an infinite amount of something.

To the original post:

If something can create itself from nothing than something that doesn’t exist has the power to create. Assume God doesn’t exist. Therefore God has the power to create.

There has never been nothing, ever. Not according to science and not according to the Bible.

According to the Big Bang Theory, at all points in time in the Universe there is something that exists.

And the Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth from the waters of the deep that God was hovering over.

 

[yppop]

1. Since the Universe contains everything that exists, there is not other “things” for which it to expand into.
2. The expansion, is of the Universe itself. The space between matter is growing. But the Universe is not expanding “into” something.
3. But as a quantity of stuff, no you can’t have an infinite amount of something.
4. There has never been nothing, ever. Not according to science and not according to the Bible…

CatSci
I offer my comments on these four statements excised from your post 41.

Your statements 1 and 2 contend that the universe is not expanding into “things” or something. Doesn’t that mean that the universe is expanding, if not something, then surely into nothing? Isn’t the absence of something, nothing?

But your statement 4 states that “nothing” does not exist. So, what do you believe the universe is expanding into?

Doesn’t your statement 3 imply, since you can’t have an infinite amount of something, that there is not an infinity of anything?

I understand that there is a lot of ambiguity associated with the connotations of words like “nothing” and “something”, but the way I am interpreting them seems to me that you are saying there is no God. Surely God is “something” into which our universe is expanding?

Read my post 32. I believe I am saying the same thing as you but without ambiguity. I assume CatScience stands for “Catholic Scientist” in which case my post 32 should not be beyond comprehension as it obviously is for most respondents in this forum.

Yppop

 

[CatSci]

Your statements 1 and 2 contend that the universe is not expanding into “things” or something. Doesn’t that mean that the universe is expanding, if not something, then surely into nothing?

To say that the Universe is not expanding into something, is not to say that it is expanding into nothing.

Nothingness cannot exist as a thing for which the Universe to expand into.

Isn’t the absence of something, nothing?

I don’t know. Can nothingness have the property of existence? I don’t think so, otherwise there would be “something” that is existing.

Nothingness would require the absence of existence, which would mean that it doesn’t be.

But your statement 4 states that “nothing” does not exist. So, what do you believe the universe is expanding into?

It isn’t expanding “into” something. It, itself, is expanding. There isn’t anything that exists for it to expand “into”, not even nothingness.

The question, then, is nonsensical.

Doesn’t your statement 3 imply, since you can’t have an infinite amount of something, that there is not an infinity of anything?

There are infinite digits of Pi, they just don’t exist as a “thing”.

I understand that there is a lot of ambiguity associated with the connotations of words like “nothing” and “something”, but the way I am interpreting them seems to me that you are saying there is no God.

I’m a theist and I say there is a God.

Surely God is “something” into which our universe is expanding?

I don’t think God qualifies as a “thing”.

Read my post 32. I believe I am saying the same thing as you but without ambiguity.

The math part was confusing. I’ll quote and reply to the other stuff here.

From #32:

Remember the big bang theory states not only matter, energy, and time emerged from the singularity, but so too did space itself.

Pedantically, matter emerged some time after the big bang. Otherwise, yeah.

If space is considered to exist as a single modality

What does “space existing as a single modality” mean?

If space is considered to exist as a single modality (as assumed by science) to be continuous, then there is a paradox about the nature of what existed before and still exists beyond the universe. The before/beyond can only be “space-like”,

There is no such thing as “before the Big Bang”. Time, itself, emerged at the Big Bang so there is no point in time before T=0 for which anything to exist within.

Questions about things “before” the Big Bang are simple nonsensical. They just don’t make sense.

Its like: What is the weight of the color of a thought?

which if one considers that the universe is finite and the space that emerged from the singularity is continuous and the before/beyond is also continuous then there could be no boundary. But a finite universe must have a boundary.

Spacetime is just a giant 4D manifold (physics). That manifold is getting bigger.

If we “rewind” time, that manifold eventually collapses into a singularity.

That says nothing about anything that is not within the manifold.

Then the before /beyond must have the characteristics of…

You can’t be talking about a UNIverse, then. By being a UNI-verse, it contains all that exists and there are not things that exists outside of it.

Then the before /beyond must have the characteristics of continuous space, namely it is infinite in extent and infinitely divisible, and could only be the substance that provides the spiritual aspect of reality.

If there is some continuous space that exists outside of our “universe”, then that is a whole nother -verse and ours isn’t Uni-.

You’re talking about a miltiverse theory. That’s not the Big Bang theory.

Added by edit:

But a finite universe must have a boundary.

Actually, according to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe is a manifold that is finite yet unbounded.

 

[CatSci]

I’ll take this on separately.

But a finite universe must have a boundary.

That’s not true.

Consider the surface of the Earth. It is finite, yet it is unbounded.

That is, you can walk in the east direction forever and you will never find the edge of the Earth. You’ll eventually end up where you started.

Same goes for the Universe.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe is finite yet unbounded.

If you started heading in the “left” direction, you would eventually start approaching where you started from but you’d be coming from the “right” direction.

 

[Al_Moritz]

@One Point

You are exactly right. Nothing can come from nothing. And by nothing, I mean the absence of states of existence. Your friend clearly does not understand what nothingness is in concept.

Atheists generally like to think of empty space or the quantum field as nothingness. This is of course completely wrong. Nothingness does not have a quantum field or empty space. Atheists tend to refer to our concept of nothingness as “Philosophical nothingness”.

Theists also have a poor understanding of nothingness, because they don’t realize that nothingness does not have even a God in it. Theists tend to think that God created the universe ex nihilo, i.e “out of nothing”. But, they fail to realize that this sort of nothingness is not the same thing as “philosophical nothingness”, because there is a God present to create something ex nihilo. Hence, if there is a God, then it’s not “philosophical nothingness” they are referring to.

Your atheist friend is out of his mind if he thinks “philosophical nothingness” has properties or can create things. It cannot by definition. I tend to think your atheist friend is confusing the quantum field with nothingness, i.e. the absence of states of existence.

This confusion about ‘nothing’ is one of the main reasons why, after intense encounters with the worldview, I have a hard time taking atheism seriously. Some atheists know the difference, but they are few and far between.

 

[yppop]

To say that the Universe is not expanding into something, is not to say that it is expanding into nothing.

Nothingness cannot exist as a thing for which the Universe to expand into.

I don’t know. Can nothingness have the property of existence? I don’t think so, otherwise there would be “something” that is existing.

Nothingness would require the absence of existence, which would mean that it doesn’t be.

It isn’t expanding “into” something. It, itself, is expanding. There isn’t anything that exists for it to expand “into”, not even nothingness.

The question, then, is nonsensical.

There are infinite digits of Pi, they just don’t exist as a “thing”.

I’m a theist and I say there is a God.

I don’t think God qualifies as a “thing”.

The math part was confusing. I’ll quote and reply to the other stuff here.

From #32:

Pedantically, matter emerged some time after the big bang. Otherwise, yeah.

What does “space existing as a single modality” mean?

There is no such thing as “before the Big Bang”. Time, itself, emerged at the Big Bang so there is no point in time before T=0 for which anything to exist within.

Questions about things “before” the Big Bang are simple nonsensical. They just don’t make sense.

Its like: What is the weight of the color of a thought?

Spacetime is just a giant 4D manifold (physics). That manifold is getting bigger.

If we “rewind” time, that manifold eventually collapses into a singularity.

That says nothing about anything that is not within the manifold.

You can’t be talking about a UNIverse, then. By being a UNI-verse, it contains all that exists and there are not things that exists outside of it.

If there is some continuous space that exists outside of our “universe”, then that is a whole nother -verse and ours isn’t Uni-.

You’re talking about a miltiverse theory. That’s not the Big Bang theory.

Added by edit:

Actually, according to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe is a manifold that is finite yet unbounded.

CatSci
I know all those arguments ( I’ve read over 120 books about science and mathematics). The finite unbounded universe scenario is proposed by the materialists that lust to avoid the question about what lies beyond the universe. Their approach is to calculate an infinite solution. That way they eliminate the question. As a scientist you must know that equations like the general theory of relativity can be manipulated to produce whatever solution you’re looking for simply by adjusting the assumptions. There are three popular solutions: a closed, a flat, or an open universe. The one you are alluding to is the closed universe. You use as an analog the “surface” of the earth. We are not talking about a surface of the universe. Like the earth that has a “boundary” between the surface and the atmosphere, the universe has a “boundary” between its outer limit and whatever lies beyond the same stuff in which the universe’ s embryo, the singularity, was immersed. When the universe was the size of a golf ball, it was finite, else it was immersed in the nothingness that doesn’t exist. If the universe was finite when it was the size of a golf ball, it must still be finite because nothing can expand to infinity

And where is God in your infinite universe scenario? I believe you and I, as Catholics, must believe that God existed prior to the creation of the universe and exists within (omnipresent) and beyond a finite universe. To believe in an infinite universe is to believe in pantheism.

Don’t be seduced by the materialistic arguments derived from games they play with equations. You can think for yourself, but I have been at this game a long time and the partial solution I have arrived at and presented in post 32, namely the reality of two modalities of space, can be developed into plausible counter arguments to those made by the materialists.

I do my best to avoid discussions in this forum because they consume so much valuable time and few have any idea what I am talking about, including yourself as indicated by your answer (post 44) to my post 32 and 42, so consider this post to be a comment rather than a rebuttal. I hope you change your mind and get back on the Catholic side of the fence. To deny that nothing came before the big bang is to deny the existence of God.

Yppop

 

[987mk]

If this is how atheism reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason.

It’s not Atheist reasoning.

Atheist reasoning is simply not believing that a God or Gods do not exist, as there is no evidence that a God or Gods exist.

 

[Overture]

It’s not Atheist reasoning.

Atheist reasoning is simply not believing that a God or Gods do not exist, as there is no evidence that a God or Gods exist.

But it’s much more than that, actually. By dismissing a belief in deities, you are rejecting a throng of philosophical and logical exercises and questions that point toward the existence of God. You’ve already staked a claim in the game by rejecting proofs and non-empirical/physical evidence (a standard you don’t hold all such intuitions to, such as our ability to intelligently discern what we intuitively assume to be an intelligently assembled and knowable physical reality).

If you do not believe in God because there is no evidence and you believe that evidence cannot be gathered concerning something that is necessarily beyond physical reality, which is where, you believe, all possible knowledge and reality exists, then you are an agnostic or perhaps a materialist.

If you tended to believe that God does not exist, and believe that any evidence we have points towards the non-existence of deities, then you’d be an atheist.

Obviously, the term “atheist” is a broad concept that could encompass agnosticism or the rejection of belief without evidence. But in the modern-day West, there is a pretty clear demarcation between the type of ideas espoused by the Four Horsemen and materialists (atheism), and those expressed by, say, an empiricist or skeptic (agnosticism).

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s not Atheist reasoning.

Atheist reasoning is simply not believing that a God or Gods do not exist, as there is no evidence that a God or Gods exist.

Of course it is atheist reasoning.

All atheists are naturalists, either by theoretical conviction or in practical terms, thus they make positive claims about the world just like theists do. The fact that atheists are naturalists, i.e. believe that the natural (physical) world is all there is, is precisely the reason for them “not believing that a God or Gods exist”. What other reason would there be?

And naturalism is precisely the reason why the ‘physical nothing’ of the quantum vacuum, the ‘nothing’ that has properties (ouch, if it does, then it’s not nothing), is so popular among atheists.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is an utter shame that people are being convinced by atheistic scientists to believe in atheism or that philosophy no longer has an important role to play, e.g. Neil Degrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking.

The irony of course is while Hawking (together with his co-author Mlodinow) proclaimed in his latest book that “philosophy is dead” he ends up with a lot of amateurish philosophizing under the mantle of scientific authority.

As the saying goes, those who claim they do not practice philosophy end up practicing bad philosophy. This holds for most atheists, by the way, with their typical disdain (and ignorance) of philosophy.

Of course, naturalism is an entirely philosophical worldview, just like theism is. Atheists may say that it is a scientific worldview but this is false. It is a particular philosophical interpretation of scientific findings, but it is a positive claim that goes beyond science proper. Yet anything that deserves the term ‘scientific’ falls under science proper, without transcending it like naturalism does.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have spent days trying to talk someone into believing that nothing is nothing and can therefore do nothing. Doing something would mean it was THERE. It exists! Therefore it cannot be nothing. Nothing is non-existence or non-being. Something that does not exist cannot do anything.

I have always assumed somethings are so basic, they are self-evident. Yet my friend insists that this is an assumption, something someone imagined. HOW…he asks me…do I know that non-existence cannot do anything? My question is, if you believe that NON_EXISTENCE can do things, why on earth do you struggle with the idea that God exists? A least the concept of God has something doing something while it exists?

If this is how atheism reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is what it boils down to. After all. What could be so far fetched as having non-existence doing things?

You will have to ask God, he is the only one who can do it :tiphat:

Linus2nd

 

[987mk]

You will have to ask God, he is the only one who can do it :tiphat:

Linus2nd

I asked, your God didn’t answer.

Just as I listened when I was believer, I was met with silence. If God is real, at least he’s consistent in his absence and silence.

I do not believe your God is real.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I asked, your God didn’t answer.

Just as I listened when I was believer, I was met with silence. If God is real, at least he’s consistent in his absence and silence.

I do not believe your God is real.

God has not spoken to me either. But He has given me rationality and the desire as well as opportunities to acquire knowledge, in order to figure things out.

 

[CatSci]

The finite unbounded universe scenario is proposed by the materialists that lust to avoid the question about what lies beyond the universe.

That’s hilarious.

As a scientist you must know that equations like the general theory of relativity can be manipulated to produce whatever solution you’re looking for simply by adjusting the assumptions.

Yes, you can think of it as being a “Universe Generating Engine”. That is, you pick the (name removed by moderator)uts and it outputs some kind of universe that has whatever properties.

You can then compare those properties with the properties that we can observe for our Universe, and see how close the generated universe is to the one that we inhabit.

Rinse and repeat until you’ve got a model of a universe that is getting pretty close to our Universe.

There are three popular solutions: a closed, a flat, or an open universe. The one you are alluding to is the closed universe.

Yes, a closed yet unbounded universe. That’s what most closely matches our observations.

That’s the Big Bang Theory, that’s what I’m talking about.

You use as an analog the “surface” of the earth. We are not talking about a surface of the universe

Using strictly the surface of the Earth allows us to reduce the number of dimensions we are talking about down to 2, so that we can better wrap our minds around what the theory is saying.

If you want to “leave” the surface, then you have to add additional dimensions to the equation, and you are talking about stuff that exists that is not within the Universe. If that’s the case, then its not a UNI-verse that you are talking about, as that contains all that exists, but instead you have proposed a multi-verse scenario.

Like the earth that has a “boundary” between the surface and the atmosphere, the universe has a “boundary” between its outer limit and whatever lies beyond the same stuff in which the universe’ s embryo, the singularity, was immersed.

Then you are no longer talking about the Big Bang Theory.

And that’s fine if you want to talk about something else, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

When the universe was the size of a golf ball, it was finite, else it was immersed in the nothingness that doesn’t exist. If the universe was finite when it was the size of a golf ball, it must still be finite because nothing can expand to infinity

Yes, the Big Bang Theory proposes a finite Universe. So do I.

And where is God in your infinite universe scenario?

Not in the Universe.

I believe you and I, as Catholics, must believe that God existed prior to the creation of the universe and exists within (omnipresent) and beyond a finite universe. To believe in an infinite universe is to believe in pantheism.

Who believes in an infinite universe?

And if God existed prior to the creation of the universe, then he cannot exist within it. So I’m on the right track that he isn’t.

Don’t be seduced by the materialistic arguments derived from games they play with equations. You can think for yourself, but I have been at this game a long time and the partial solution I have arrived at and presented in post 32, namely the reality of two modalities of space, can be developed into plausible counter arguments to those made by the materialists.

But you’ve left the theory and proposed a different one. You aren’t talking about the Big Bang Thoery.

You’re talking about a multi-verse.

And that’s fine, if that’s what you want to talk about, that just isn’t what I was talking about.

I do my best to avoid discussions in this forum because they consume so much valuable time and few have any idea what I am talking about, including yourself as indicated by your answer (post 44) to my post 32 and 42, so consider this post to be a comment rather than a rebuttal. I hope you change your mind and get back on the Catholic side of the fence. To deny that nothing came before the big bang is to deny the existence of God.

The Big Bang Theory, itself, does not allow for time to exist before the singularity. To talk about “before the big bang” is to misunderstand the theory.

I won’t argue with you if you just want to say that you don’t accept the theory, but I’ll correct you if you say something wrong about what the theory says.

 

[yppop]

That’s hilarious.

Yes, you can think of it as being a “Universe Generating Engine”. That is, you pick the (name removed by moderator)uts and it outputs some kind of universe that has whatever properties.

You can then compare those properties with the properties that we can observe for our Universe, and see how close the generated universe is to the one that we inhabit.

Rinse and repeat until you’ve got a model of a universe that is getting pretty close to our Universe.

Yes, a closed yet unbounded universe. That’s what most closely matches our observations.

That’s the Big Bang Theory, that’s what I’m talking about.

Using strictly the surface of the Earth allows us to reduce the number of dimensions we are talking about down to 2, so that we can better wrap our minds around what the theory is saying.

If you want to “leave” the surface, then you have to add additional dimensions to the equation, and you are talking about stuff that exists that is not within the Universe. If that’s the case, then its not a UNI-verse that you are talking about, as that contains all that exists, but instead you have proposed a multi-verse scenario.

Then you are no longer talking about the Big Bang Theory.

And that’s fine if you want to talk about something else, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Yes, the Big Bang Theory proposes a finite Universe. So do I.

Not in the Universe.

Who believes in an infinite universe?

And if God existed prior to the creation of the universe, then he cannot exist within it. So I’m on the right track that he isn’t.

But you’ve left the theory and proposed a different one. You aren’t talking about the Big Bang Thoery.

You’re talking about a multi-verse.

And that’s fine, if that’s what you want to talk about, that just isn’t what I was talking about.

The Big Bang Theory, itself, does not allow for time to exist before the singularity. To talk about “before the big bang” is to misunderstand the theory.

I won’t argue with you if you just want to say that you don’t accept the theory, but I’ll correct you if you say something wrong about what the theory says.

You apparently don’t understand a thing I wrote and obviously don’t understand cosmology; in fact you probably don’t understand anything you wrote. Your post makes no sense at all which convinces me to believe that I am wasting my time. I must admit i did learn one thing from you and that is:I can now add “CatSci” to my list of nonsensical respondents to avoid.
Bye, Bye
Yppop

 

[CatSci]

You apparently don’t understand a thing I wrote…

What did I write that makes that so apparent?

I’m sure I understand what you wrote, let me paraphrase it here and you can tell me where I go wrong:

You start with a description of the real and rational numbers. You explain how the real numbers are a superset of the rational numbers, and the rational numbers are a subset of the real numbers. The real numbers are continuous while the rational numbers are discrete.

You then go on to describe what you see as a paradox in the Big Bang theory, based on the assumption of space being “considered to exist as a single modality (as assumed by science) to be continuous”.

Now, that’s not even a proper English, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense. But when I asked you what you meant you didn’t explain.

Anyways, you go on to provide your explanation to the paradox as:

The universe described in the Big Bang theory being a discrete subset, like the rational numbers, and that there is a superset around that, which is another continuous modality of space (like the real numbers), in which the states that were before/around the Big Bang exist.

Is that not a correct paraphrasing of what you wrote?

 

[Nixbits]

I’m greatly enjoying this discussion. Thank you to CatSci in particular. I’m learning a lot. The analogy of the earth’s surface to try to understand the concept of a finite unbounded universe is really useful. I can feel that my mind, that has struggled with these mind-bending concepts, just became slightly less bent out of shape.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I asked, your God didn’t answer.

Just as I listened when I was believer, I was met with silence. If God is real, at least he’s consistent in his absence and silence.

I do not believe your God is real.

And what was it that made you stop believing that he existed?
You can P.M. me is you want.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

I’m greatly enjoying this discussion. Thank you to CatSci in particular. I’m learning a lot. The analogy of the earth’s surface to try to understand the concept of a finite unbounded universe is really useful. I can feel that my mind, that has struggled with these mind-bending concepts, just became slightly less bent out of shape.

An exercise in dimension reduction may help:

Consider a cube. It has 3 dimensions. If you reduce if by one dimension, you get a plane, which is 2D.

If you reduce a plane by one dimension, you get a line, which is 1D. Reduce a line by one dimension and you get a point, which is zero-D.

Now, that zero dimension point can represent an object that has another dimension.

Consider a pencil, lets call it a line (forget that it has a width). If you look down the shaft of the pencil, it will look like a point. (point it directly at your eye and you only see the tip)

Consider a point on a page, that could represent a pencil that is pointing into the page (that you are looking down the shaft of).

That zero dimensional point can represent a one dimensional line, we just can’t see the dimension because it is going into the page and the page does not visually represent that dimension to us.

To go up a dimention, consider that a line can represent a plane that we are looking at on edge. The plane goes into the page and we are looking down its edge so then visually, that gets represented as a line. A line can represent a plane that is going into the page.

Still with me?

Now, consider the surface of the Earth. Just the 2 dimensional surface, there is no up and down, just north/south and east/west (two dimensions)

Let those 2 dimensions of just the surface of the Earth represent all three spatial dimension (just like a plane can represent the edge of a cube).

Let the north-south direction represent the timeline.

While you are in the northern hemisphere, as you travel southward, the Earth gets bigger as you approach the equator.

That represents that three spatial dimension of the Universe expanding through time. As we go forward in time, the Universe gets bigger. As we go southwards, the surface of the Earth gets bigger. Remember to keep this to just the surface, there is no interior and there is no exterior, as those would be additional spatial dimension beyond the three that we are talking about.

Now, let’s go back in time, or northwards on the surface of the Earth.

The surface gets smaller and smaller as you approach the north pole. That’s just like the Universe getting smaller and smaller as we approach the singularity.

So, what happens when you get to the north pole? That represents the singularity at time T=0.

Well, the surface of the Earth wraps back around on itself. That is, you can’t go any farther north than the north pole. At the north pole, any and every direction you look towards will be “south”. You cannot leave the surface of the Earth and point upwards, because that dimension does not exist within this analogy.

Asking what is before the Big Bang is just like asking what is north of the North Pole. The question just does not make sense. You cannot go any farther north than that and there is no such thing as time before the Big Bang. Time, itself, along with space (i.e spacetime), emerged at the Big Bang. Since time started there, you can’t go back further than that.

At the north pole, all direction are south. At the Big Bang, all time is forward. The singularity is like the north pole, its a point where everything comes together and from it there is only one direction you can face, as all directions are the same: “south” or “forward”.

Make sense?

Any questions?

 

[inocente]

Asking what is before the Big Bang is just like asking what is north of the North Pole. The question just does not make sense.

Although the originator of the theory held that there could be time before the big bang, but all evidence of it was wiped out by the singularity:

“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.” - Msgr. Lemaître, catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Is that still true, or has a possible preexistence of the universe now been disproved?