What if there never was nothing?

[WannaLearn]

What if there was always something and nothing never existed?

the idea that "there has to be a beginning" is based on a layman's understanding of the concept of time, because it's not a line and thus there's little reason to assume there has to be some kind of start to it.

and Like before the bang what have scientist started to think besides the multi universe idea.Do they think there was nothing?

[Byblos]

What if there was always something and nothing never existed?

the idea that "there has to be a beginning" is based on a layman's understanding of the concept of time, because it's not a line and thus there's little reason to assume there has to be some kind of start to it.

and Like before the bang what have scientist started to think besides the multi universe idea.Do they think there was nothing?

Of course there was always something, God. If you're referring to physical/material (i.e. contingent) things, even if we were to postulate that it always existed, it says nothing of the necessity of a prime mover. You see, there's no way around that. Either there was nothing, then something, therefore the necessity of an uncaused first cause, or there was always something, therefore the necessity of an unmoved first mover (a la Aquinas' first way).

[Seraph]

There is the idea of an eternally oscillating universe, one that goes through an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, but that idea has lost popularity after they found that the universe is accelerating in its expansion and not decelerating, so it doesn't seem likely that it'll ever come slamming back together. Plus, even even if it did come slamming back together into a Big Crunch, that wouldn't necessarily result in another Big Bang. Other scientists say that the Big Bang theory is accurate until you go back to the moment of creation, some say we don't actually know what happened during the planck era of the universe (the first-less-than micro second).

Another variation of the mutiverse idea is that our Big Bang and universe resulted from matter that was pulled into a black hole in some other universe, and that black holes create "big bangs" on other dimensional planes. So if you trace it back on this model, theres an infinite chain of universes being born from singularites formed in black holes from other universes.

I believe Stephen Hawking and some others also expressed that idea that due to the quantum fluctuations that might have existed before the Big Bang, as far as matter is concerned something like a singularity can indeed "pop into existence" without any real cause. As you mentioned there are also many variations of the multiverse theory, one of which is that our universe is finite in age and was born in the Big Bang, but the greater multiverse is eternal.

However it seems that the majority of scientists consider the Big Bang to be the true beginning of matter, space, and time so it basically is the true beginning. Those scientists either probably believe in God, or say "we can't possibly know what was before the Big Bang".

[Byblos]

There is the idea of an eternally oscillating universe, one that goes through an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, but that idea has lost popularity after they found that the universe is accelerating in its expansion and not decelerating, so it doesn't seem likely that it'll ever come slamming back together. Plus, even even if it did come slamming back together into a Big Crunch, that wouldn't necessarily result in another Big Bang. Other scientists say that the Big Bang theory is accurate until you go back to the moment of creation, some say we don't actually know what happened during the planck era of the universe (the first-less-than micro second).

Another variation of the mutiverse idea is that our Big Bang and universe resulted from matter that was pulled into a black hole in some other universe, and that black holes create "big bangs" on other dimensional planes. So if you trace it back on this model, theres an infinite chain of universes being born from singularites formed in black holes from other universes.

I believe Stephen Hawking and some others also expressed that idea that due to the quantum fluctuations that might have existed before the Big Bang, as far as matter is concerned something like a singularity can indeed "pop into existence" without any real cause. As you mentioned there are also many variations of the multiverse theory, one of which is that our universe is finite in age and was born in the Big Bang, but the greater multiverse is eternal.

However it seems that the majority of scientists consider the Big Bang to be the true beginning of matter, space, and time so it basically is the true beginning. Those scientists either probably believe in God, or say "we can't possibly know what was before the Big Bang".

Neither an oscillating universe nor quantum fluctuations nor any other far-fetched theory to ever be postulated now or ever, will negate the necessity of either an uncaused first cause or an unmoved first mover. That's just a metaphysical fact.

[Seraph]

I'm just presenting those as prominent theories out there, not saying they're mine.
I just find them interesting to read about.

But just for the sake of arguement, in multiverse theories, there IS an uncaused cause. The multiverse itself (or the extra dimensional "space" between universes) is just uncreated quantum chaos in those theories.

[Byblos]

I'm just presenting those as prominent theories out there, not saying they're mine.
I just find them interesting to read about.

I know Seraph, I've read your posts over the years.

It's just that proponents of these theories really think they're bringing something new to the table. They're not.

[PaulSacramento]

In THIS universe, everything that is has a beginning.
What is outside this universe is NOT subject to the laws of this one, so...

[Byblos]

In THIS universe, everything that is has a beginning.
What is outside this universe is NOT subject to the laws of this one, so...

I'm sorry but you're wrong. metaphysically wrong.

[Seraph]

But just for the sake of arguement, in multiverse theories, there IS an uncaused cause. The multiverse itself (or the extra dimensional "space" between universes) is just uncreated quantum chaos in those theories.

Sorry, I edited the post above while you were adding that last post so this part got lost. The multiverse model does have an uncaused cause in the model, it's the multiverse itself, the "space" between universes. It is chaotic and unorganized, and wasn't created in the Big Bang unlike our universe, arguably bypassing the need of an additional first cause in this model. In fact, I could argue that this chaotic randomness is more "simple" and with less need of a cause than God, who very clearly has a mind and is orderly, which is more complex than chaos. So it seems that the idea of God being the only possible let alone necessary first cause is kind of on shaky ground. I believe God exists and is the first cause, but I'm very suspicious of the assertion that He HAS to be the first cause in any possible model, and using this as a proof.

In THIS universe, everything that is has a beginning.
What is outside this universe is NOT subject to the laws of this one, so...

I'm sorry but you're wrong. metaphysically wrong.

Is he metaphysically wrong? God is not subject to the laws of the universe, partly because He exists outside of it.

[Byblos]

But just for the sake of arguement, in multiverse theories, there IS an uncaused cause. The multiverse itself (or the extra dimensional "space" between universes) is just uncreated quantum chaos in those theories.

Sorry, I edited the post above while you were adding that last post so this part got lost. The multiverse model does have an uncaused cause in the model, it's the multiverse itself, the "space" between universes. It is chaotic and unorganized, and wasn't created in the Big Bang unlike our universe, arguably bypassing the need of a first cause in this model.

According to the BVG theorem, even the multiverse would have to be geodesically incomplete (having an origin) if it has a Hubble expansion rate greater than zero. And for it to churn out an infinite number of expanding universes, it would necessarily have to have some kind of an expansion rate greater than zero.

Besides which, where did the mutliverse come from? Where did the chaotic, fluctuating quantum field come from? In fact, where did the vacuum they all reside in come from? As you know a vaccuum is not nothing, it occupies space-time.

[Seraph]

The multiverse isn't described as an expanding super-universe churning out smaller universes, its usually described as a "foam" where the bubbles are universes, spanning out forever. Some pop and dissapear while others form. It doesn't necessarily have an expansion of the whole thing, thats just a law of our own universe. If all the universes formed at the exact same time then maybe, but thats not a necessary part of the multiverse model.

You're right, a vacuum isn't nothing, neither is quantum fluctations. God is not nothing. No matter the model, there never was absolutely nothing.

[Byblos]

The multiverse isn't described as an expanding super-universe churning out smaller universes, its usually described as a "foam" where the bubbles are universes, spanning out forever. Some pop and dissapear while others form. It doesn't necessarily have an expansion of the whole thing, thats just a law of our own universe. If all the universes formed at the exact same time then maybe, but thats not a necessary part of the multiverse model.

Not true. The BVG theorem applies to all types of universes, not just ours. To state the multiverse itself is not expanding but it produces infinite expanding (or not) universes goes against everything we know, particularly with respect to entropy.

You're right, a vacuum isn't nothing, neither is quantum fluctations. God is not nothing. No matter the model, there never was absolutely nothing.

Except static remains static forever, unless it is moved by a prime mover. Any which way you cut it, it must start with intent. Static has no intent.