The Big Bang (Origins)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 24, 2010, 00:23 (5109 days ago) @ dhw

I maintain that no-one can possibly know that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
> 
> I find most of the above pretty confusing. If someone can know something "theoretically", you may as well argue that anyone can advance any theory and claim that theoretically they know what happened. A theory does not constitute knowledge. A theorem may do, but then it has to be derived from proven facts, and here I'm afraid I need help in understanding the meaning and relevance of your quote.-Theoretical physics involves an advanced form of math with theorems bsed on the facts in the standard model. Although based on facts, much of the standard model is still theory. Proof, absolute for dhw, is impossible. We can only go back to Plank time, 10^-43 of a second after the BB. The origin will always be hidden.-> 
> The statement "simply there is no before, before the Big Bang" is precisely what I'm complaining about. And if we don't know what the 'origin' was, but we do know or believe that there was a Big Bang, then the 'origin' must have been whatever caused the Big Bang, and a cause comes BEFORE an effect. Finally, I don't understand how Guth's "guess" constitutes knowledge.-Guth is guessing the cause. His theorem does not guess at it, simply declaring there is nothing behind the BB in time. George's immediately preceding discussion accurately and adequately covers the subject. Again George and I agree. But he is happy with a description that sounds like a creation to me, but he accepts something from nothing. Again cross interpretations.-
>
> I'm afraid that in any case none of the above solves the conundrum of how a designer could design the universe if he didn't exist before it came into being.-
Then he must have existed! All the old Greeks declared there had to be a First Cause.