Nothing was before the big bang because the concept of time is a human perception and thus did not exist prior to the big bang. Since time is a loop what causes the end of the universe will inevitably cause the start of the universe.

The prevailing theory, and the one that I subscribe to, is that the universe will be eaten by black holes. We have found that galaxies have a black hole at hypothesize that there is a black hole at the center of the universe. Right now the universe is expanding, however eventually the energy which is pushing the universe away from it's central point will become less than the gravitational pull inwards and the universe will begin to compound upon itself. Black holes can consume everything, including other black holes, and eventually all that will be left in the universe will be black holes drawing closer to each other until they have all eaten each other. At this point when the last particle that creates what we consider the universe is consumed the universe will have ended, however the mass will go critical and explode into the big bang and the universe will start.

The big bang theory is accepted due to the fact that we know the universe is expanding from a central point where all matter had existed prior. I forget the name of the waves that were discovered in the early 20th century but there was some waves traveling in space from a central point that is responsible for the push of the universe outwards.

First law of thermodynamics:

states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.

It's said the before the universe as we know it formed, there was infinite heat, and infinite pressure, inside something of infinite density.

There was NO explosion.

I think DeaExMachina does a good job of explaining where the so-called "point" from which the Big Bang originated comes from.

As with any theory, the big bang theory is one that will be constantly refined and amended or possibly even thrown out, should new discoveries be made. However, I think there is significant evidence that the basic idea of the big bang is valid, such as the presence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and, as DeaExMachina pointed out, the expansion of the universe from a central point.

I prefer the theory in which the outcome of our universal expansion is determined by the total mass of the universe. In the event that the mass of the universe is above a certain amount, then the gravity between bodies in space will cause them to be drawn towards each other.

amando is right too: there wasn't explosion as we would describe it on Earth (with fire and an outrush of air, etc.)

There's only two possibilities:

- At some point, something came from nothing.

- There has always been something, ad infinitum.

Both make no sense to our scrambly human minds, but that's the choice you're confronted with if you're going to start thinking about the origin of the universe.

Scientists have publicly accepted that they cannot, and may not be able to explain all of these things they have hypothesized. Which is far more than what religion attempts to do.

This is why religious types like to say the big bang is invalid, because they don't really know much about physics except what they learned in high school (matter cannot be created or destroyed...blah blah blah). So they take their less than well informed belief to be fact and say that scientists, who actually know what they are talking about, are wrong and therefore god had to create the universe (or universes...)

I just don't get how something can come out of nothing

bmurdock60 wrote:

I just don't get how something can come out of nothing

How do you believe the universe started?

The big bang doesn't explain the creation of the universe. It only explains how the universe began to expand. The universe may very well have existed prior to the big bang.

Again, the big bang doesn't explain the formation of the universe.
You know that the universe is expanding, right? The big bang explains that expansion, not the beginning of the universe.

As Esmo said, when you think about it, there are only two possibilities.
If the universe did have a beginning, then at some point, something would need to come from nothing. Otherwise, there would be no beginning.
That, or the universe has always existed; it's eternal. It never had a beginning.

Hugh Ross wrote,

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

I feel this maintains with super string theory and the discussion of the 10 Dimensions. I present you with this, as it is the foundation of my theological beliefs. If you watch this you'll see God is the 10th Dimension and you'll better understand how Time doesn't actually exist it is merely a manifestation of the 4th Dimension. In actuality the entire universe is static.

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

Just lying down and thinking, it became clear to me what DeaExMachina said: Different realm where there is no time, and that time is a worldly thing to make things progress. I believe God is in the other realm, that's another debate though.

I have watched most of Thunder's videos.

For all those bashing creationist christians, what you all have to realize is that there are different forms of christianity with different beliefs. Some believe the most common belief, in that God formed the world in 6 days, and that He rested on the 7th. They believe that the days were 24 hour days as we experience today. The big bang theory really has no place in this belief system.

There is another form however, which believes in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the belief that God set the world in motion through evolutionary processes. This includes the the big bang, and evolution as well. In this form of christianity, they say that the time periods of the 7 days are never specified, and that the word "days" is used to help us percieve it better. In the first 6 days, God creates whatever necessary to start evolution, and the 7th day in which he rests, He sits back and lets evolution take place.

Don't lump everyone together.

I guarantee you every intelligent poster in this thread is well aware of this. Creationists do not have the greatest reputation however due to their ignorance and disregard for scientific progress.

I think this qualifies as lumping, Zen.

I kind of get what you mean, though. I think a more valid statement would be:

"Creationists do not have the greatest reputation due to the ignorance and disregard for scientific progress exhibited by their most outspoken representatives.

You don't need to specify that it's the representatives, at the heart of creationism is the idea that science is wrong, and there's no skirting around that. It's an inherent belief to being a creationist, and that's why they all deserve derision.

While I normally hold your opinions in high regard, I must say that I am strongly against this statement. It is generalizing and, quite frankly, rude to declare that all creationists are to be the object of ridicule.

Believing in creationism does not automatically equal an "inherent" belief that all science is wrong. Perhaps there are some creationists that do hold that belief, and they would certainly say that scientists deserve derision. However, to say that all creationists believe that all science is essentially invalid is the same as saying that no person of devout faith can be a scientist, which I know for a fact is not true.

I wasn't lumping. I said that's what they were known for. I didn't say that's how they all are, even if the majority of what they believe ignores scientific thought.