What might lie beyond the big bang?

Posted by Mr S K Morgan on 2010-04-06 00:44:06 UTC

The answer to the question lies, as a possibility, in the nature of the world and the assumptions behind the Big Bang theory. It is not being suggested that the idea or the definition of the world contain the answer; it is a merely being hypothesised that the object cannot be detached from its cause. The question assumes there is a relationship between the object and its cause as a point of origin. We therefore have to consider three elements first: the object, its cause, the relationship and the nature of 'origin'. And one can go on ad infinitum. The point is, in short: there are many elements to consider, then only based on hypothesis, and yet leading only to a theory. The answer, one must assume, lies in a different methodology other than reasoning. Let's suggest and consider experience, imagination, then revelations - in all its senses. If we fail there, we shall try a combination of all. If that does not give us a 'definite' answer, we have to either find a fifth way or rethink the question and its basis. For a fifth way, why not consider philosophy outside the box, one avenue off the way being that which is beyond the limitations of language. When you beyond existence, feel and then imagine. Let's try an experiment: then just let your feelings overtake your thoughts; where there is no thoughts, what do you have? In that moment, try finding the answer. Then let us all in on it. For my part, I am still trying; the problem is all I can find is questions about my existence - not a question about whether God or the Big Bang is the First Cause. Reason for Being NOT Cause of Being: I find myself contemplating the FUTURE not the PAST. In my view, Flew's question belongs to the Hi/story of Philosophy. By considering the following basic question: if either God or the Big Bang are the causes of Existence, then what?, we begin to consider questions from what we know to what we can know (i.e. verifiable answers), and not questions from what we know to what we cannot know (i.e. unverifiable answers). The Reason(s)/Purposes of Existence are for the future not the past, and if all of the above is nonsense to you, I have made my point.

I blame Swinburne

Posted by Rollo on 2010-06-17 14:10:10 UTC

Clearly, the argument that either the Big Bang had no cause, or it was caused by an entity meeting Swinburne's definition of God, fails completely. There is an infinity of other possibilities. But I think that the biggest problem here is Swinburne's definition of God itself, which is most unhelpful in this or any other context. Taking just one example: the clause 'able to do everything (i.e. omnipotent)' is at the root of endless silly problems. It is childishly simple to construct smart-alec paradoxes based on this clause (along the lines of 'can God cook a meal so big that He cannot eat it'), because the idea of being able to do everything is fundamentally incoherent. It is by no means clear that the property of being all-powerful, as used by people other than philosophers, means 'able to do everything'. It just means very very powerful (e.g. powerful enough to create the universe etc). Once you accept this the so-called 'problem of evil' goes away too. Re the Big Bang and Fine Tuning arguments - I suspect that both of these relate to either the immaturity of our physics (for not being able to answer the questions) or the immaturity of our broader mental apparatus (for seeing the need to ask them). We might solve or transcend these questions, maybe even within our lifetimes. Or, quite possibly, we might never do so - perhaps we're just not clever enough and will never come up with the correct approach, just as dogs will never discover calculus.