Some people seem to believe that the big bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning, but isn't this a misunderstanding of what the big bang was? The big bang was preceded by the universal singularity. The big bang simply signaled the beginning of the expansion of the singularity. The singularity was the universe before it began to expand.

We don't know what, or even if, any event or instant preceded the universal singularity. All we know is that the singularity (or universe) began to expand about 13.4 billion years ago. Doesn't this mean that there is no evidence that the universe had a beginning? Can this mean that causality is an illusion; that some instances and events may have no cause?

It appears so, there is no evidence of a before and the singularity is the event with no cause...It appears to come from nothing, the word created could be used.This reasoning that the singularity was always there by the fact it could be reduced to minute frames of time , smaller and smaller and never actually beginning, its pure fiction.I compare it to the idea i never actually started getting up this morning, i only ever went to bed.

I wouldn't say that the singularity is the event with no cause. As far as we know, the singularity wasn't even an event, it was just an instant. It may have been the instant with no cause - the instant that initiated all of the others since then.

Even if the singularity was caused by a prior event, that doesn't mean that it came from nothing. That simply means that we don't know where it came from, and that's only assuming that it was caused by a prior event and preceded by a prior instant.

Do you believe that the singularity was caused or created by something else? If so, then why?

"Does the universe have a beginning?"

Well here is this huge problem amongst all thoughts. Either something has to always have existed or something had to come from nothing. Both are the same amount of ridiculousness. They contradict everything we can imagine. Probaly niether is true and it's some third option I can't think of. Cant thought we could never answer these questions as they were beyond both logic and our reason. I think I agree with him on that.

Greater minds than mine tell me there is no evidence of a before, so we can only speculate.The faithful can say i believe it was created.We just dont know, but its a pretty spectacular event and the mere fact that it appears to come from nothing is food for thought.As you might know i look for foot prints and this is one of them..

The first problem is the use of the word 'the' implying that there is a one-size-fits-all universe to be perceived by all at all times/moments; there is not.
Your universe has a beginning and end with your 'beginning' and 'end'.

nameless wrote:

The first problem is the use of the word 'the' implying that there is a one-size-fits-all universe to be perceived by all at all times/moments; there is not.
Your universe has a beginning and end with your 'beginning' and 'end'.

Quote:

No . . . my use of the term 'the universe' is no different from my use of the term 'the basketball'. The word 'the' is just an article (a sub-category of adjectives).

When you say 'the', you are refering to one specific item; 'the universe', one specific universe...
Or it can be a generality as in, 'the basketball (any basketball), when properly inflated, all else being equal, is round.'
Are you refering to one specific universe or to a 'general' notion, an imaginary average of all?

hue-man wrote:

When you say 'the', you are refering to one specific item; 'the universe', one specific universe...
Or it can be a generality as in, 'the basketball (any basketball), when properly inflated, all else being equal, is round.'
Are you refering to one specific universe or to a 'general' notion, an imaginary average of all?

I am referring to one universe because I only know of one universe. I don't think we have enough justification to believe in a multi-verse, yet.

Are you trying to say that you don't believe that the things that exist can be considered as a part of a cohesive whole?

I am referring to one universe because I only know of one universe.

Are you trying to say that you don't [think] that the things that exist can be considered as a part of a cohesive whole?

to mystify matters even more, there is an emerging theory that the Big Bang that gave rise to us is only one in a series, possibly infinite. (But then, it might be Brahman breathing in....breathing out....breathing in.....)

I will restate the known facts,there is no evidence of a before, so we must presume by knowledge that it came from nothing.If we presume by logic it could not possibly come from nothing.The question is do we believe the facts or our logic? With such a moment who can say.Its the only event when the creationists can point to an event and claim it as theirs.I can recall a phrase from the bible, when i had faith..God was the word..You can almost imagine the moment like the deep penetrating sound of a base bassoon echoing across the emptiness.Will we ever know?

to mystify matters even more, there is an emerging theory that the Big Bang that gave rise to us is only one in a series, possibly infinite. (But then, it might be Brahman breathing in....breathing out....breathing in.....)

The known facts do not demand that we presume that the singularity (or universe) came from nothing. If the singularity came from something or somewhere else, then that something else cannot be defined as nothing. Do you understand what I'm saying?

The creationists are chasing a lost cause. The argument that the universe had to have been created by a supernatural deity because something cannot come from nothing is called the first cause or cosmological argument, and that argument is invalid. Creationists pretend to do a logical deduction, but they stop deducing at the point of convenience. If everything needs to be created or caused by something else, then what created God and heaven? If the answer is that God can be 'self-created', then why can't the universe be 'self-created'? This argument uses circular logic, and is not logical decidable.

Im no creationist but i can see the reasoning behind the facts.If we have a supreme being who lives beyond time , you dont need a previous time for him to be created in.Why could he have not created the universe and with it time, if he is the supreme being.He could blow his horn and existance be.Till we know if and where this universe did or did not come from, we are speculating.What is something? what is nothing? A few notes on gods violin and we have the vibrations of energy and matter we call something, where once there was what we try to say nothing.

So I ask again, if God can be 'self-created' and eternal, then why can't the universe be 'self-created' and eternal?

It could be, but until there is any evidence that points to this as being the case all we're doing is science fiction.

It could be, but until there is any evidence that points to this as being the case all we're doing is science fiction.

Does the universe have a beginning? Well, how do we define "universe"? Do we call pre-Big Bang stuff the universe, or is the universe what began at the moment the Big Bang began?

Before the big bang, the universe existed as a singularity.