Is Bigbang nothingness?

Answer 1

there are several people who do not believe in god also do not believe in big bang theory. it is yet to be proved scientifically. like creation theory, it is also another theory put forth by some people.up to now no body gave satisfactory replies for the questions put forth by rationalists how the universe is created?

Answer 2

Is Bigbang oneword?

Personally I don't believe in the Big Bang theory. The world is too beautiful to have been a random fluke. A far more convincing argument for intelligent design. God created the world out of nothingness. If there was a Big Bang then who or what caused it? How do you get something from nothing? What was the first cause? Or is Bigbang just another name for God?

Answer 3

To not believe in the Big Bang theory is to laugh at the hard-working, dedicated and, yes, even spiritually motivated scientists out there trying to find deeper answers without relying on religion.

The Big Bang was the beginning of our world. Why, how, when it happened is being sought out. How it relates to Christianity/spirituality is a huge question. Can the Twelve Apostles AND Charles Darwin both be right? The answers, I believe, are still in front of us.

What scares me is that most religious texts are mostly taken on the letter of the book instead of the spirit of the book. With science, making a mistake and correcting it is accepted, such as finding the Earth is round instead of flat. Try to prove a faux pas like that in the Bible or Qaran, and you've got a hornet's nest full of trouble from fundamentalists of any religion or belief.

Those who require spirituality to get by daily should continue their books. And scientists should keep striving for their truths also. We can all meet in the middle when it's time. And there IS time.

Answer 4

well it depends who you have decide that for yourself jsut take in the main facts and jsut think do i believe in this or not?personally, i think its in impossible for it to happen out of nowhere the only supernatural event that ever occured in this universe was the beggining what started it is unexplainable we dont know what started but the big bang theory in my belief just explains what happened after it in thus the big bang was not a cause but an effect of what happened before, what i think happened before might confuse some and anger but this is philosphy what if the end of the universe was the beggining like the theory is that later on millions of years from now the universe is supposively going to collapse on itself what if after that the energy from that very destruction causes the beggining of the universe in which history actually is repeating itself.weird huh?just a theory on a theory no harm intended just to open minds a little bit thats all.but can you prove it wrong? thats the real question.

Answer 5

Depending on what you mean by "nothingness" the answer can be either yes or no. Most people think of nothingness as simply the absolute lack of any sort of Being. This is sometimes referred to as nihilistic nothingness. If this is what you mean by nothingness, then the answer to your question is "no". The big bang is an event during which physical reality as we know it came into Being. Also, since absolute nothingness has, by definition, no potential for anything, we cannot rationally say that the big bang emerged from nothingness, because this would imply logical self-contradiction within our meaning of nothingness. As it turns out, absolute nothingness is a self-contradictory concept – kinda like the notion of a square circle.

So what is the alternative to absolute nothingness? The vacuum of modern physics is a good example. When you remove everything that can be removed from space, what is left? The answer is "nothing" – but look at the question carefully. Notice the qualification "everything that can be removed". This implies that something cannot be removed, and this is exactly right, although the limitations of language start messing with our minds at this point. To say that there is "something that cannot be removed" implies that there is some THING left over, and this misleading. What's left over is "nothing" by which we mean "NO-THING". Concepts born of language completely kick our butts here, but I think of it this way: I make a distinction between "Being" and "existing". To exist is to be a "thing" of some determinate sort from some potential perspective. Every THING has at least one property on the basis of which it can be distinguished from other things from some perspective. As I define the terms for the purpose of my theory, existence is a mode of Being, but it is not the only mode of Being. I say that Being can be either determinate or indeterminate. I like to use water as a metaphor. Water can be either glassy calm, or it can be rippled in some way. The waves represent determinate things. There is some perspective from which you can count waves and distinguish one from another. This is the essence of thing-ness. Waves are still water, but they are water-in-process, in contrast to calm water, which is water-as-pure-potential relative to the possibility of waves. A wave is a determinate manifestation of the waving potential intrinsic to water, whereas calm water is the indeterminate, un-manifested potential for waving. So on this metaphor, existence is the "manifest waving of Being". Calm water is "Being in the mode of nothingness" according to this metaphor. The big bang is like a "wave that emerged from nothingness."

The "empty space" or "vacuum" of modern physics has at least two kind of "Being" in the mode of "nothingness". One is the sea of virtual particles that many of your have heard about. The other is the Higgs field, which is more obscure. The Higgs field is sorta like the scaffolding that makes physical existence as we know it possible; it is not spatial, temporal, or material in the normal sense, but it determines important properties of space, time, and matter. The sea of virtual particles and the Higgs field are like a "rough draft" of existence – an aspect of Being that "prior to" existence, but sets the tone for all that eventually does exist.

On this second view of nothingness, we can say "yes" the big bang in nothing. In fact we can say that EVERY thing is nothing. Why? Because all that really IS is Being, and Being is nothingness that has the potential for waving. In the metaphor, waves ARE water, so everything is water. Water continues to be water, even when it is waving. Existence and Nothingness are One. The water metaphor is misleading because it implies substantiality to nothingness, but this is a limitation of language that I think is unavoidable.

Answer 6

people dont understand alot of things. the big bang did happen and that IS why we are all here. however it did not come from nothingness because the big bang could not have happend if there was not a physical dimention for it to be possible. religeon is WRONG. however spirituality seems to be the way to go. personaly i am agnostic

Answer 7

big bang is everything. nothingness is what's before the big bang.