@Francesco108 "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to ANY question. The fact that you can't accept it as an answer means you will either completely disregard it as an answer or you need to do the scientific study and research required to answer the question to your satisfaction. The former is intellectually dishonest, and the latter is too hard for the intellectually lazy. Good luck.

@Francesco108 wake up troll, you have been brainwashed since you learned to first speak mama dada mine poopy diaper and geebush loves you that you believe jeehobah ghostholes 3=1 trinitarian gibberish alleged vaginal virgins birth alleged baby gawds in dirty donkey stables every December 25th.....go away and don't rape women like your allah deluded islamist copycat fake violent co-religionists and don't sell flowers like moonies or hareKrishna cultists at the airports

Typical cult abuse of children

Hehehe, yeah?! Was he created in the big bang! Or did HIS god make him?!

@Coffeeman
No the god that made his god made him

@darthfaja I'm agnostic about his God's God's God! I worship only God's God! Hanumon! Monkey God!

@darthfaja @coffeeman I like that. It was the god that made the god that made the god who made the god who made him. We can get a nice chain going here.

@Francesco108 So you are saying that you think the cosmologists and astrophysicists of the world are just making shit up? Two words: Peer Review. The Theory has passed the muster of the world's finest minds, present company excluded. But that's the greatest thing about science... it doesn't give a shit if you believe it or not, because it's true no matter what (unless you can disprove it... please try! I'm routing for you! We all are! Show us we're wrong and we'll believe you instead.). But if you'd rather believe in magical invisible beings with universe creating levels of superpowers, that's on you.

@Francesco108 Your logic is faulty... This is actual logic:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

Hehehe! Sarcasm at its finest! Thank you!

I was just about to put my two cents worth in and found that out.

@kiramea we still can, here. he won't see any of it, but everyone else who comes here will.

g

I agree. No one knows.

@Francesco108 But someone with a vivid imagination can and will believe anything, or more importantly make up anything they want, which you are doing. I'll refer you to my Schmias comment above. I say Schmias created everything, your move.

@Francesco108 No shit. It's for those that recognize that they lack knowledge and are honest enough to admit it. Do your own research instead of asking the question of a bunch of people that don't know the answer you will accept. God is not an answer, it is a cop out. Why question anything if you can just pacify yourself with "god did it"?

@Francesco108 Spiritual reality is an oxymoron. Nothing spiritual can, by definition be a reality, as reality consists solely of the natural world and our perceptions of it. The supernatural doesn't exist outside of your own head. Aren't you a bit old to still believe in fairy tales? At some point belief crosses over the line into psychosis. Mind the gap.

@Kafirah This guy seems to have replied to me but deleted it before I saw it. Do you remember what he posted? I;m just curious.

@Sgt_Spanky He basically said that he had a spiritual reality that no one could measure...

@Francesco108 Energy has always existed from the point where it entered into this 3D universe of space-time. Not before.

@Kafirah Prove that you have any evidence you know what existed before this 3D universe as we know it.

@Normanbites I don't have any evidence that anything existed before The Big Bang, and neither does anyone else. My personal belief (which I'm willing to change if ever presented with compelling evidence to the contrary) is that there was no before The Big Bang, at least not in any way we are currently able to understand. However, Time, in as far as we understand it, is the measure of the forward linear progression of all energy and matter through the empty space of the universe and how long it takes to get from physical Point A to physical Point B, since Time is as much a physical dimension as length, width, and height, and therefore, before our universe existed, there was no such thing as time, as there was nothing to measure against. If something existed before the Big Bang, we have no way of knowing if it was even linear, or three dimensional and therefore may not have even conform to our definition, understanding, or even our concept of time, which is, of course, a 4th dimensional concept that we will never fully understand as three dimensional beings. And if there was nothing to measure against, then it effectively did not exist in the way that we define existence, energy included. But, if you have some sort of evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm more than willing to take a look at it.

@Kafirah So you are saying if you don't know how to measure it or understand it, it didn't exist?

That sounds to me that you are just being a lazy thinker.

You were correct when you said no one knows what existed (or didn't exist) before the big bang AND YOU DONT EITHER!!!

@Normanbites no, and thanks for calling me lazy and stupid in one fell swoop. What I'm saying is that there was no linear process to measure and without a frame of reference, especially considering it was a pinpoint anomaly billions of trillions of magnitudes stronger than Super-massive black hole, and since time slows down the closer you get to a black hole, Time couldn't move forward or backyard in a linear manner, and therefore, being forth dimensional, it effectively did not exist. Just because you can't extrapolate from incomplete data doesn't make ME there lazy thinker here. But yes, even though you put words in my mouth, if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. I may not know what did or didn't exist before the big bang, but I know you are taking to me like an asshole and therefore I have nothing else to say to your rude ass.

@Kafirah As I recall, YOU are the one who asserted you KNEW for a fact energy did not exist before the big bang. Now that I've called you on that bit of lazy thinking, you are embarrassed and think I'm an A-hole who called you (as opposed to the idea) lazy and/or stupid when I didn't.

If you can't be held accountable for the ideas you present, please take your sniveling butt elsewhere. But if you stick around long enough, I can almost guarantee you will see me get called out for lazy thinking from time to time. But if you are too busy sniveling to catch that, it isn't my problem.

And BTW, no one (including you) knows what time was doing before the Big Bang either.

@Normanbites "...That sounds to me that YOU ARE just BEING a lazy thinker."

You accused her of lazy thinking. That's not attacking the idea; that's implying that she thinks lazily. So, whereas you may not feel that you committed ad hominem, you actually did. And, based on the most current data available, her statement holds true with the findings of theoretical astrophysics and known cosmology according to both Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and Stephen Hawking's theory of Space Time.
It looks like you are wrong on both accounts. I suspect that's why you double-downed on your argument, rather than apologizing to her like an adult, and instead accused her defensiveness to your rudeness as sniveling. But that's just what an outside third-party perspective not personally involved in the argument sees. At least one person's outside third-party perspective, anyway.

@Lucifer Not quite. Being caught doing lazy thinking does not make the entire person lazy. She accused me of calling her lazy, not her thinking. Both you and she are incorrect on that count.

Yes, Hawking and Einstien's theories support the possibility of time beginning with or shortly after the Big Band WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CURRENTLY POPULAR HYPOTHESES WITH THEORETICAL ASTROPHYSICS. I capitalized all that for a reason. It is currently HYPOTHESIS within a THEORETICAL framework.

This means NO ONE KNOWS!!!! Get it? Got it? Bet not!!

The short of it, you are wrong and off base. She didn't know, you don't know, no one knows what happened before the big bang. Period!! ===>>> (.)

Now snivel about it all you like. But that's the facts and the facts don't give a hoot what you think.

@Normanbites You are a real delight to converse with. So you admit that her assessment of the most current scientific data is valid; you just want to hear (read) her say it is a well supported hypothesis, rather than conclusive? I believe she said that it was her belief and not by any means absolute. So, I'm sniveling now, am I? Cute. Sounds to me like you just want to quibble over semantics, which is oh so interesting and makes for quite the stimulating tedium. I like that you recognize that facts are facts. I especially like that she has stated the facts that are as current as we have the data to assert. But feel free to cling to your biases concerning science. After all, science doesn't give a hoot about your biases either. You do realize that a scientific hypothesis, though not as factual as an actual scientific theory, is considered viable unless otherwise disproven and is based on facts, right? I didn't think so. Just thought I'd check anyway. Carry on. Ta!

@Lucifer And you realize any hypothesis or theory for that matter is NOT considered factual ... Right?!?! Bet not! Cya!

@Normanbites You're ridiculous. Any scientific hypothesis (i.e. any hypothesis devised by the scientific community) that is even considered for more than a second, especially within a theoretical framework, is based solely in facts. And not only facts, but compelling facts based on convincing observations and calculations. And then, to remain a viable hypothesis within a theoretical framework of actual scientists, it must pass the muster of peer review. So your information is wrong. Your feelings about scientific hypotheses are both wrong, biased, misguided, and irrelevant. Again, to sum up, @Kafirah gave you actual science verified by actual professional astrophysicists, and you are saying that she and all of the data that supports the hypotheses that she stated are wrong... because YOU say so. If asked, I'd have to deny that I thought you had a good grasp of the scientific method. Your feelings don't change facts. Nor does your denial that facts are indeed facts or that hypotheses are based in fact. You, to put it simply, are wrong on this one. Have fun with that fact. Or do more research so you can overcome your confirmation biases and accept the data as factual, as any intellectually honest person actually interested in learning more about science would. Your choice. I don't care either way, as this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned. @Kafirah was smart to bow out of this conversation when she did. I wish I had done the same. It truly wasn't worth the time or effort.

@Lucifer You need to better understand the concepts of Speculation (an idea with no supporting facts) Hypothesis (an unproven idea that seems to fit the available facts), Theory (an unproven idea that has passed some relevant tests), Law (an idea that has been tested every conceivable way and is still valid.

The Big Bang is Theoretical, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are Hypothesis, Anything before the Big Bang is speculation.

Because some astrophysicist has an idea that seems to fit the available facts, that does not make it factual, theory or law.

Why don't you go get a handful of dark matter and get back to me, Mkay??

So does this alleged gawd thing have a penis ?...Perhaps your alleged vaginal virgin Miriam instead was raped by your alleged yhwh bible jehobah ghostholes so he could sire himself to be a December 25 baby on his fake backdated calendar invented 800 years after his ALLEGED BIRTH in a dirty donkey stable

I'll only take issue with your use of the term "theory" as you say it is "not a fact." This may be accurate to state when you boil down to the most base essences of the statement, the phrasing often comes back to haunt those who don't understand how the definition of a theory differs between lay conversation and science. In Science, theories are hypotheses that have a preponderance of evidence and no contradicting evidence. It's not a guess or a hypothesis, it has evidence standing behind it. Remember, gravity is also still "just a theory," as well as having an associated law (an equation that describes how it works, in this case the force of gravitational attraction between 2 objects with mass is a product of those 2 masses and a gravitational constant, divided by the distance between the masses squared, F=m1m2G/r^2). That said, your info about being a simple question with a complex answer is well said. Don't forget the obvious answer of "we don't know, but we are working to find out."

@PadraicM I am well aware of the nature of "theories". My favorite to use is Ohms theorem. It is easier to explain because any instrument used to validate it has been calibrated using Ohms theorem. The crucial question then to ask is "Do you want your house rewired by a couple of guys who went to the will of Allah school of electrical engineering?"

@Francesco108 not true at all. ask einstein. you forgot about the cosmological constant.

@JeffMesser he's not interested in actual answers. He wants to prove to us non-believers that god exists because he thinks he asked a question that will stump us and make us think "hmm... maybe my years and years of logical thought on the subject of god could be wrong, so maybe I should believe after all!" in some idiotic version of Pascal's Wager. However, I doubt he has considered Occam's Razor and the fact that zero non-anecdotal evidence has ever been presented in the entirety of human existence. Actually, this sealioning probably makes him feel like he's being a good little believer and he's doing us a favor challenging our non-belief with pitiful logic questions that end in "I don't know." As if not knowing something is enough to believe in the ridiculous because it was proposed as an alternative explanation. Seriously, he won't accept "I don't know" as an answer, and he thinks we're dumb and is completely oblivious to the staggering irony inherent in his proselytizing.

@Kafirah isavasyamidan sarvam ahamvasyamidam sarvam. jagatyam jagat.

@JeffMesser I recognize the chant, but don't speak much Hindi. Any chance of a translation?

@Kafirah the Lord is in all I am in all. it's a retelling of the first verse of the isa upanishad from the yurveda. the vedanta feel that we are part if the actual fabric of the universe. the space. we are in all and we are the Lord. I use it for the whole dark energy discussion.

@JeffMesser "We are Starstuff" -Carl Sagan. I 100% recognize the truth of that statement. I can't claim to be a god, of course, but as far as I can tell, humans are the closest things to gods as this universe has yet shown us. Then again, I think instead of humans it should be earthlings (i.e. creatures from Earth), as there are some creatures that have attributes that far exceed our human ones.

@Kafirah we are the chariot riders of our minds as described in the katha upanishad. the viewers of the projector screen that our senses and memories and thoughts paint a picture upon. we exist apart from them in the very fabric of reality and our only true, inherent sense is vibration. in our pure form we observe vibration. It's all we do. Being stuck in this meatsack is our little human vacation.

@JeffMesser I don't think I can get down with that completely as it seems to imply reincarnation, which I don't believe is a real thing as it has about as much evidence as gods. That is to say, only anecdotal.

@Kafirah theoretical physics started with ideas and then turned to math for their proof. there are still many of einstein's that we're trying to prove or disprove mathematically as the case may be. I have no problems black-boxing things. we still use newtonian physics to explain behaviors up to a certain point even though we know it is incorrect on a macro level. so I find your reasoning a bit myopic and close-minded. but such is your right.

@JeffMesser Not myopic. I have considered the possibility thoroughly. However, I see it in terms of thermodynamics. The body stops converting energy after death and all the energy that was stored in the body is then converted to heat by the bacteria that breaks down our cells. That energy is lost to the room as heat. So, our lifeforce is, in as far as anyone has ever been able to prove, no more than biochemical electricity and for it to be transferred in any cohesive form would require a physical method or process or mechanism, of which there is none currently. It becomes a matter of entropy after that, as there is no way to hold cohesion of our own personal separate energies. And, since we are only a collection of our memories and experiences recorded as patterns of electrical activity in our brains, once our brains stop reinforcing those patterns, those memories are lost, as with Alzheimer's or Dementia or death. So, the possibility of our engrams surviving beyond us without a brain transplant within seconds of our death, I don't see how reincarnation is anything more than wishful thinking to make oneself feel better about their fear of death and inevitable nonexistence. Seems like more religious woo peddling to me. But you are free to believe what you wish, however unsubstantiated.

@Kafirah when einstein does a closed-loop energy conservation equation and finds himself having to account for universal expansion by a cosmological constant that isn't even a constant then I consider any talk of entropy in that matter to itself be a whole lot of your "woo". 80% of all the energy in existence is dark energy in seemingly unoccupied space so spare the comments about unsubstantiated. the problem with so many agnostics is they forget that nature tends to act like nature so matching unknowns up with knowns to look for patterns is the most basic of human exploration. any new idea is ridiculed until proven. that doesnt mean it is without merit. often ideas spring forth that may confound understanding and explanation for long stretches. we're just not catching up to the psychological analyses of the Indians of 3,000 years ago in the vedas. There's a difference between faith and confidence.

@JeffMesser Keywords: Closed loop. Death is not a closed loop situation, and therefore, according to the second Law of Thermodynamics, conservation of energy doesn't apply.

@Kafirah that doesnt say anything. Einstein removed everything from reality and still had expansion to overcome space-time curvature. I can account for every molecule in a body and still not account for cosmological expansion in space. thats the whole point. we don't know all the causations, but we do know some predictable results so we can theorize. calling such theories "woo" is a load of now just as it was when they said it to Einstein before he learned the physics to back up his ideas.

@JeffMesser How does transferring one's consciousness from one body to another (sometimes decades after the original death) equate to the expansion of the universe? That is a straw man argument to say that just because we don't understand something that is observable and calculable means anything is possible, no matter how untenable it sounds. Also, Einstein worked out the math for his physics in one lifetime, so where's the evidence, other than anecdotal or religious, that supports your hypothesis? Because I haven't seen one iota of evidence to even suggest that your hypothesis has any merit. Seriously, point me toward viable evidence, and I'll see things your way. Until then, I'll go with what I can verify.

@Kafirah there's no transfer of consciousness. thats not a thing at all.

@JeffMesser Say what? That's not how reincarnation works? One person being born into a different body to lead another life and learn from the mistakes of their past lives so they can reach Nirvana or Gehenna or Paradise, or Enlightenment (names change depending on the various flavors of believers)? Is that not what reincarnation is? I mean, from the Latin re-, meaning again, and incarnate meaning to embody, thus reincarnate meaning to embody again... am I wrong? Is the dictionary and Wikipedia wrong? Either way, the only way someone's energy can effect anyone else after they die is by slightly warming the ambient temperature of the room the body is in, and even then only for about two hours. Or is forensics wrong too?

@Kafirah no, thats how you interpret it. I'd suggest that you follow the bouncing karma and try to imagine karmic resultants. Plus you're giving the self an individual identity. thats not true either.

@JeffMesser Karma... the universe balancing it's scales of good and bad, right and wrong, and moral vs. immoral... see, this is where I get off the ride. The universe is both inhospitable and downright hostile to life, and I'm convinced it doesn't (because it isn't, as far as we can tell, a conscious entity like some sort of god) give a shit about us. It would be like you having a personal relationship with and sitting in judgment over the microscopic bacteria that inhabit every single cell in and on your body and judging them for how well they are able to procreate and proliferate. Nope. I'm out. Karma is silly and unrealistic. Sorry.

@Kafirah thats not karma at all. that is the western distortion of karma. karma is cosmic momentum because of the fact that things intertwine so much. it ahs nothing to do with things being morally right or wrong other than the fact that people tend to do that themselves. karma is just the increased probability of something else happening because of a previous action taken.

@JeffMesser Then that's not Karma, that's Statistical Analysis of Cause and Effect. Though Karma is easier to write.

@Kafirah I know what karma is - from the dhammapadda as well as the vedas. There are societal effects that emerge from following a course of action contrary to cultural norms ... but that's not a moral judgment on one's actions (which is how it has been perverted to say). Those norms change over time. It's not an inherent character of the act. This is exactly why I study the sanskrit to make these translations myself. I have found so many examples of translations and explanations with a HUGE degree of confirmation bias and little to no understanding of the culture and history that comprised the term's context. The Buddha saw this issue as well. There's a reason he refused to deny that there was a self. Because it's one of those concepts that could be easily misconstrued but for a proper foundation of knowledge in context. Same reason that the Dalai Lama will not comment on the many self-immolation cases going on now while he is in exile.