Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore

[carolina73]

Even the spirit you claim is something, not nothing.

It is a view that many take and it has more proof than you offer. Just saying something was there neither identifies what it was nor how it got there.
Your asking people to take it on faith that it was always just sitting there for a googolplexian, before it decided to detonate without any action of outside forces because it was the only something. Then the dot expanded into the entire universe which just happens to be flat and round. Because a googolplexian of years of equilibrium changed because of the action of what? It cannot change by itself. It would have required an outside force.

[Mister D]

This is getting interesting.

[MisterVeritis]

On this topic, THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE by Brian Greene is a start.

I am pretty sure I have that in my library.

Do you think Greene supports something arising from nothing?

[MisterVeritis]

I get it now: Nothing is something! Word games are such fun!!

Name the cosmological theory that explains the beginning. There is none. It is so far simply unknown--not not understood, unknown.

Every cosmological theory I am aware of says something came from something, not from nothing.

Something is something. Nothing is nothing.

[MisterVeritis]

Even the spirit you claim is something, not nothing.

It is a view that many take and it has more proof than you offer. Just saying something was there neither identifies what it was nor how it got there.
Your asking people to take it on faith that it was always just sitting there for a googolplexian, before it decided to detonate without any action of outside forces because it was the only something. Then the dot expanded into the entire universe which just happens to be flat and round. Because a googolplexian of years of equilibrium changed because of the action of what? It cannot change by itself. It would have required an outside force.

It does not matter to me what that something was. I believe something must be eternal, must have always been. For if there had ever been nothing then nothing would be.

[Chris]

Every cosmological theory I am aware of says something came from something, not from nothing.

Something is something. Nothing is nothing.

indeed, all cosmological theories of the known universe say that because the known universe follows the known laws of physics. That's what's known means, can be explained by the known laws.

But all those theories break down at the point the known laws of physics break down, and that point is generally considered the big bang singularity, when time nor space nor matter/energy exist.

The whole point of the OP is that the big bang singularity is not the beginning, and that what came before (if we can even say before since time did not exist) is unknown, does not follow the known laws of physics.

All cosmological theory about that unknown is pure unscientific speculation, like your opinion, though much more knowledgable.

This has been explained to you 100s of times.

You don't get it.

Instead you play games with words.

[Chris]

I am pretty sure I have that in my library.

Do you think Greene supports something arising from nothing?

Briane Green will tell you what a number of us have been telling you, right on down to the meaninglessness of much of what you say:

The Big Bang explains the evolution of the universe from a starting density and temperature
that is currently well beyond humanity's capability to replicate.

Thus, the most extreme conditions and earliest times of the universe are speculative and
any explanation for what caused the Big Bang, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, that shouldn't prevent us asking questions like what was there before the Big
Bang.

However, another answer is that the very question may not make as much sense as the word seemed
to suggest we know how to parse that sentence, we know what it means to talk about the mumble
before the Big Bang because we fully understand the meaning of that kind of sentence, but
it could be that when it comes to the Big Bang, the sentence actually doesn't mean anything.
It could be that the Big Bang was the place where time itself started talking about a
billion years ago 10 billion years ago but if you go to 13 point 8 billion years ago,

The big bang that may be where time started, and you can't go further back in time, than
the very origin of time itself....

[Chris]

Here he is talking to Joe Rogan and so he simplifies but he says the same thing. He paraphrases Steven Hawking's (dead guy, lol) analogy of asking which direction is north and walking that way, until you reach the north pole and the question is just simply meaningless.

[LWW]

I am pretty sure I have that in my library.

Do you think Greene supports something arising from nothing?

You should read it, and yes he does.

I don't agree with his ultimate cop out of atheism that free will does not exist.

[LWW]

Even the spirit you claim is something, not nothing.

It does not matter to me what that something was. I believe something must be eternal, must have always been. For if there had ever been nothing then nothing would be.

On that we agree.

Do you assume that the visible is all that exists then?

Or, are you tap-dancing around the idea that 'CREATION' requires a 'CREATOR?'