Jonesy

I agree and is it possible to have any meanigful debates, non-religious-flavour, about why the big bang occurred? Because ultimately, even if we can't conceive it (as you said, before the Big Bang there was 'nothing') - there must be 'some' reason - and, since I am not religious and believe in science (not religious), I have a huge problem in my head with the fact that there was likely a Big Bang - because if everything indeed was 'started' (i won't use 'created') at the big Bang, then what could be the reason? And since there must be a reason, then what could be the reason for things (forces) occurring from nothing? I just want to have a hypothetical duscussion of what we would need to think about if the fact the 'everything came from nothing' was somehow proven.
(non religiously, of course - is that even possible?)

Jamie_L

First of all, I think "everything came from nothing" is an oversimplification with ripe potential to lead to confusion and strawmen. With that said:

Why does there need to be a reason?

This may sound like a flippant question, but take it seriously. Does there really have to be a reason "why" the big bang happened, or is it simply that you have an emotional need for there to be a reason why?

Science appears to show the "big bang" happened. Regarding your OP, our choices are:

1) It happened for a reason.
2) It did not happen for a reason.

What evidence do we have that option 1 is more likely than option 2?

Jamie

Jonesy

well, because "IF EVERYTHING" came from the bif bang, then to me, this indicates 'a single process' which by definition of producing everything, had to have initial conditions that governed 'how' the explosion evolved and how it "even started" in the first place. You don't get an explosion without input - that's basic logic. What the input WAS in a matter for speculation.

But since there was an explosion and since this implies initial conditions (which we don't know) for this explosion (even if these initial conditions caused 'a purely random expansion outwards'), then the existence of initial conditions may suggest 'design' of these. The most important thing to consider is the fact that any initial conditions that start any process result in most of that processe's LATER attributes already being defined 'in' the initial conditions - so that we have a rather intriguing case of having to think not only 'what' the initial conditions were, but, since these resulted in many instances of observable order in the universe - we have to think IF perhaps these initial conditions were intelligent in any way - and THEN, once we are convinced that the initial conditions may have really been 'ingenious', we can start to address the question of 'perhaps they were designed'. Because once we get to that stage, I could not logically imagine 'ingenious planning' to be attributed simply to chance.

Jamie_L

Well, considering "initial" and "started" implies time, and time came after the big bang, it is not clear to me that this kind of terminology can be applied to the BB. Things that seem "logical" in our past experience may not be analogous when applied to the start of the universe. Of course, thinking like that makes my head hurt. (No cosmologist am I.)

This was no ordinary explosion. See comment about logic above.

I don't see how existence of "initial conditions" alone suggests design. By that arguement the pattern of my sneeze in a tissue suggests design of the pattern, because the pattern had initial conditions.

Again, this seems like a leap. There are many, many examples in nature of order without intelligence (crystals, snowflakes, creating a pyramid by pouring ball bearings into a box).

It seems we have two choices in thinking of the start of the universe: either everything must have a cause (creating an infinite series of causes with no beginning), or at least one cause didn't have a cause. However, I don't see that either of these cases demands explanation of "why". It's possible there is no "why".

Jamie

Jonesy

well, if you admit the existence of a 'cause' or 'causes', then this means you are defining 'why' also. The word 'cause' is given to things to describe 'why' they happen/start. And since it does not make ANY sense to say that 'there were infinite number of causes' - as this would imply 'an infinitely existing universe' - we have to admit the possibility of a cause that 'didn't have a cause'. (And if THAT can be logically proven worng, then 'there really is no god', as some creationists would say.)

Starboy

If there is a reason for creation, no one knows it. If anyone does know it, they ain't from around here and don't come around here at all. So the question is moot. Better to think about things that could be answered such as evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang.

Starboy

tronvillain

Jonesy:
Well, I do not think it is at all clear that there must be some reason. In fact, if everything did indeed start at the big bang, then there is definitely not a reason - it is simply a brute fact. Now, it is the nature of evidence that we will never be certain that there is no reason, and so are free to continue to look for one, but we have to keep the possibility in mind.

Mark_Chid

Perhaps because 'nothing' has infinite potential. there are no laws, no limits, hence maybe if nothing exists a universe of some sort HAS to happen?

We can't know, its not a reproducible situation!

Jamie_L

An event happens. The cause of that event explains why the event happened. In this example, if the Big Bang occurred, it answers the question "why is the universe here"? However, what most people MEAN when they ask why is the universe here is: "why did the Big Bang happen". Asking about the cause of the cause. My point is, how do we know the Big Bang had a cause?

Hold on there. Why doesn't it make any sense to imply an infinitely existing universe? This is one theory some cosmologists have about the universe. I will admit the possibility of a cause that didn't have a cause, but not because the other option makes no sense.

But, getting back to my original point, your OP presupposes that the Big Bang must have a cause. My point is I don't think there's a good reason to make that presupposition. If an uncaused cause is possible, it could be the big bang itself. Why suggest something more complicated than that?

Jamie

eh

You are aware, that you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence above? Think real hard.