What Happened before the Big Bang?
Adnan balboa19@idt.net
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:32:27 -0700 (00875284347, 3.0.1.32.19970926013227.006a7668@idt.net)
>ADNAN
>Time is not infinite. Haven't you studies physics? Time is relative. If
there
>is no mass, there is no time either.
>TILL
>For a view held by very reputable physicists who disagree with Adnan, I
>recommend that he read "What Happened Before the Big Bang?" by Michio Kaku
>(*Astronomy,*
>May 1996, pp. 35-41) and "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,* by
>Andrei Linde (*Scientific American,* November 1994, pp. 48-55). Both
>articles present an eternal view of the universe; thus, this theory would
>mean that time has always existed because the universe has always existed.
Adnan
Yes, if the universe is eternal then the time is eternal. But the theists
do not believe that the universe is eternal, so for them the time is not
eternal. Steve Stokes wrote that the Bible begins with "In the
beginning..." and that this is an error, because the time is eternal. Now,
this can be an error if the universe is eternal (not the time), but for the
theist who believe that the universe is created, this is not an error. Am I
missing something?
Actually, I have seen both Muslims and Christians argue this way when they
are faced with questions like "Who Created the God." Few months ago, one
Muslim posted the following response on alt.atheism to the question: "Who
Created the God." Since we are discussing this issue, what can be the
rebuttal to this Muslim's response to "Who Created the God"?
**********************************************************************
For obtaining the complex information that we normally deal with,
there are three types of answers depending on the type of question
asked. These are as follows. 1-The direct answer. That is, to know the
known directly . Such as when you ask a person his/her name and they
inform you of it. 2-Proving the correctness, or wrongness, of the contrary.
Hence we
obtain the answer for our question, whether it is right or wrong, yes
or no, depending on the correctness, or wrongness, of the contrary.
For example to prove that the sum of the angles of the triangle is
180 degrees, we assume it is not 180 degree. Logic is a combination of
(1) and (2) above, because logic is a series of if...then, and every
sentence represents a question and answer. The deduction procedure
that the mind carries out, and the process of accepting, or rejecting,
the outcome, are no more than series of questions and answers.
3-The third type of answer is to prove that the question being
asked is wrong, or its explicitly, or implicitly, illogical. Such as
that it carries its contradiction within it, or it carries within it
some assumptions that are logically inadmissible, or not proved to be
right, or assumptions that contradict the essence and definition of
the subject being asked about. Such a question does not have an answer
because, in fact, there is no question. This is because such a
question negates the basis of knowledge acquisition, and becomes a
waste of time and effort, hence inadmissible.
The answer is an explanation for an unknown thing that the question
poses. If there is no question, there will be no answer. An example
is that if we define the cow as animal that cannot talk, and if
someone asks if the cow speaks English, there is no answer to this
question because its logical mistake as per the definition, and it
carries within it probability that the cow talks, and probably, that
it is possible for all cows to talk. If we put the information
concerning cows into a computer, including the fact that cows don't
talk, how would the computer answer the above question? I can
imagine a response, put into the program, such as "question is
illogical." If someone claims, however, that he does not include such
supposition in his question deliberately, or he doesn't know about
it, it will not make any difference to the situation because the
question carries the assumption implicitly, which puts it on the list
of illogical questions, that the mind also, will never accept. Another
question might be at what speed a turtle fly? The turtle of course does
not fly. What kind of response to this question can be expected? If
one, however, says that the turtle does not fly, I will say this
answer is not for above question: Does the turtle fly? Then the
answer will be that the turtle doesn't fly. But the question at what
speed the turtle flies is an illogical question according to
definition of turtles.
The details about the nature of answers given here shall be useful
(in what follows) to show the illogical nature of the questions that
are asked about matters concerning the essence of God
Was God Created
One of the main question that is being asked is the following: if
God created everything, who created Him? Even Bertrand Russell asked
this question. Because the answer to this question is impossible to
know, however, the materialists take it as a sound justification, to
draw their conclusion that, God doesn't exist. Their justification,
nevertheless, is not admissible because even if the answer to the
question is not possible it doesn't follow that God doesn't exist. All
it means is that we don't have the answer. Besides, to believe that
God doesn't exist, one has to prove such a notion, not just be unable
to prove that he does.
I will attempt to explore the implications of such a question. To
do so I will go back to the types of answers that are given for a
question. The direct answer is not possible for this question because
we don't know the essence of God, and there is no way for us to go
back in time before creation our universe to see what happening before
the creation of time and space (if there was time before our time). We
also cannot emerge out of our universe to see what is outside it (if
there is anything there that is like our space).
The second type answer is to assume the contrary, find the answer
to this contrary, then deduce the answer to our question. It is clear
that this does not apply to our situation. We remain with the third
type of answer which is the possibility that the question carries
within it some assumptions that are not logical, or assumptions that
make the question carry a contradiction within itself.
We say that God created everything including time, space, matter,
energy, the life that we know on earth (and perhaps, somewhere else
too) etc. Hence He does not comply with the laws of these concepts
since He existed without them, and since He is the one who
created them. Hence God is not subject to space and time.
Examining our question, however, reveals that it implies time
succession and the concept that God is subject to time. The question "who
created God" implies that there was another thing that existed before
God existed, and that is the power that created God at a later period
in time. The question also implies that the supposed Creator of God
is also subject to time since it was there before it created God. In
fact the question assumes that time is an eternal law and not created
law, and that time was there before everything else, and everything
else is subject to it. This, however, is not correct. Time is just one
the laws of universe and mere fact of our creation by God (according
to definition). Time is no more than a effect that depends on the
observers motion and speed of light, and can become zero
(theoretically), i.e. void. Just as there is nothing without the
existence (or creation) of our universe; no stones, no earth, no sun
and no moon, there is no time as such.
The question, then, contain erroneous assumptions that make it
inadmissible and non-scientific. Such a question, therefore, does
not have an answer. It is similar to the question about how fast a
turtle flies. Anybody advocating materialism ought to prove that time is
absolute and eternal before posing the question.