Quote:
Originally Posted by dav3
Jeez, I didn't even see that linked post before. I almost missed the posts in this thread, but I saw it quoted above.
I see what your saying though. I guess it's not specifically the big bang theory, itself, that I don't want to agree with. It's more so the thought that nothing existed before the big bang event that I don't find to be easily agreeable.
|
Glad you finally caught it... woulda hate to think all that typing never hit its intended target.
Yeah... I'm not sure if anyone's saying that there was nothing - especially with any grade of certainty - I mean, after all... no one knows _what_ existed before everything went "BANG"... only that the idea is the "BANG" is what kicked off our modern cycle.
And, science - being the sum of knowledge gained through falsification, doesn't want to assume it knows something it doesn't know... so maybe that's where you got the idea that the theory includes that nothing existed before it - because nothing's explicitly stated before it - when, in fact, it's just an unknown, so it's not really a part of the theory.
At least ever since Parmenides in Ancient Greece helped refine the concepts of Love and Hate being the the great forces in the universe (Pure Love bringing everything together into one, and then Pure Hate pushing everything apart - leading to an eventual state of Pure Love once again = etc., etc., ad nauseam), it's been, at least philosophically, accepted that the universe is in a constant state of death and rebirth... and I don't think that idea was lost on any of the scientists who helped develop the theory.
Again, I think it's just an attempt to explain more 'recent' events backwards into infinity.