What happened before the Big Bang

One of the biggest questions that many ask about the creation of the universe is where did it come from and how did the Big Bang happen. Many scientists believe that the Big Bang came from nothing around 14 billion years ago, but scientists have little or no idea how the Big Bang actually happened. This does beg the obvious question though, “how can something come from nothing”? Surely if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there would be nothing now.

A Universe from nothing

It actually turns out that many scientists today are shrinking away from the idea that the Universe came from nothing and for good reason. It just bugs a lot of people including many reputable scientists that the while the universe is a place of cause and effect, the accepted idea that the universe came from nothing is all effect and no cause.

Scientists of course have differing views of what nothing is. Some think that nothing has weight because sucking everything out of finite area in order to create a vacuum (like space) leaves nothing, but it supposedly weighs something. So let’s be honest here, if nothing actually weighs something, then let’s call it something instead. Just because we cannot directly detect something doesn’t mean that it is nothing.

Abstract

Given this, I make the following argument where one of three propositions must be true regarding how the universe came to be. I can further prove which of the three propositions is true, thus demonstrating with irrefutable logic the origin of the universe. My approach uses a simple process of elimination where the universe came into being either by nothing, something, or someone. These three headings cover every option imaginable and no matter what your view, it will fit into one of these three headings. Atheists can choose to believe in either nothing or something, while Theists believe in someone. So let’s look at each option rationally.

The Nothing option

Some people including a number of reputable scientists believe that everything came from nothing. The idea that nothing actually caused anything is really impossible because nothing by definition is ‘no thing’. If it turns out that ‘no thing’ can actually do something, then it cannot be nothing in the true definition of that word, rather it had to be something all along. That alone makes this option a non-starter, because nothing does nothing because it is nothing and the fact that there is something, proves that nothing is not the origin. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now. It is as simple as that. However, given this obvious fact that practically anyone can understand, the idea that nothing begat everything is still argued as a possible candidate as to the origin of the universe. So let’s dig a little deeper and give this view another chance.

Some scientists argue that there is science and mathematics behind the idea that everything came from nothing. It goes something like the this: Inflationary Theory or Cosmic Inflation says that the universe is expanding and this expansion is exponential or at least speeding up. There is some very good science behind this which I am not going to delve into, as I do not wish to diverge. Suffice to say that this theory suggests that positive energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero, so it really consists of essentially nothing. The meaning of “nothing” is of course somewhat ambiguous because it turns out that nothing is really a vacuum or place with no stuff that we know of.

Putting this explanation to one side for a moment, it has to be said that there is no escaping the fact that if nothing does something, then it is something and not nothing. But a look at Quantum theory and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, (according to some), provides an explanation for how energy may have come out of nothing. It has to do with ‘quantum fluctuations’. It assumes that particles and antiparticles form and quickly annihilate each other which is what is believed happened at one of the earliest stages of the universe. One idea is that one fluctuation lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation leading to our universe. Of course if you delve deeper into such speculation, you have to conclude that in order for this to happen, there has to exist laws such as gravity, and/or particle pairs etc. That surely is not nothing, however it doesn’t stop some from saying that the universe came from nothing. In truth, that is ‘something’ and you don’t need to be a brilliant scientific mind to see that nothing cannot be the source of the universe.

But let’s not take this option off the table yet. Lets look at the math. We know that infinity can produce finite and even a zero result. It is easily understood that in everyday things we see examples of finite and zero contained within a bigger realm that seems uncountable. Let’s look at an example of zero and how it can be produced. I can take finite amounts and using simple subtraction I can get a zero result. But if I start with zero only, then I will always end in zero, hence nothing from nothing, not something from nothing. For a real application, let’s take a situation where there is zero flammable gas in a room. You can conclude either that, there never existed flammable gas in this room or you can say that there was flammable gas, but all of it is gone due perhaps to being burned up. This example is of course not adequate in explaining the science of one positive particle annihilating a negative one to bring about zero energy, but for the sake of common sense, we can see that the state of no flammable gas is explained either by it never existing in the first place or by existing and being burned up, cancelled out, or transformed into something else like heat.

The point with this is that just because we observe or work out zero in a deduction or experiment, it is no proof that nothing was the first thing. Saying that the universe came from nothing is either saying that the universe and everything in it never existed in any form at the earliest stage, or that it came from something that we measure as zero, but as mentioned before, zero can be produced by something. If it is the latter, then it is really like a swinging pendulum that is sitting dead on zero at the time of measurement or speculation, but is in reality moving or fluctuating from side to side before and after that measurement or speculation.

Scientists who say that everything came from nothing are really saying that all existence that supposedly came from nothing is really just a balance of negative and positive which equals zero, but it is a no brainer that something must exist in order for there to be positive and negative anything to take place. The fact you can make flammable gas disappear or reduce to zero is no indication that it can come out from nothing, rather that it exists but you can produce a zero result in the right conditions. Observers can easily find zero within a realm of somethings. We often witness no rain for example and when it does rain, it doesn’t mean that it came from nothing. In other words if you see something from nothing, then if you go back further from nothing, you should again see something. If a positive and negative particle annihilate each other, that actually suggests a construct of some kind that makes this possible. It suggests that something exists in order for this result to happen. If you still believe it is possible that everything really did come from absolutely nothing (with something never existing before that), then all you have is a belief, that requires faith, with no proof or logic to back up the view whatsoever.

On the outset, the Nothing option had a 33% chance of being right (of the three options) but upon simple deduction and analysis, the chance that the universe came from nothing just sunk to 0% because it turns out that it is impossible for nothing to do anything if we respect the true meaning of the word ‘nothing’. The chances of the Nothing option being right is zero and we know this because if there was nothing before the universe, then there would be nothing now. But something must have existed because many things exist now. You exist. I exist. So we move on to the other two options. The Something option and the Someone option. On the outset, each of these last two options have a whopping 50 percent chance of being right.

The Something option

Looking at the idea that something was the cause of the universe seems more feasible now, especially since it is obvious that the Nothing option is a non-starter. Whatever we observe, we never really think it was nothing that caused it. If there is a fire, we would never conclude that it came from nothing, but that the fire was caused by something. Similarly the universe is no different. It must have had a cause. Something gave it a push. Something influenced something, or something made something from itself.

I do however need to point out at this stage that the Something option could actually include the Someone/God option as a god is something by the definition of that word. For practical reasons however, I will put this Someone option into its own category and say that the Something option means anything that is not nothing or a god of some kind.

This means that the Something option must be defined as a non-intelligent, non-aware, and non-living thing which produced the universe. This Something option could also include the universe itself. The Something option must also cater for the belief that this Something must be eternal, otherwise we are back to the Nothing option because something that was preceded by nothing brings us back to the Nothing option which we have already discovered is a non-starter.

The Something option could perhaps be a force, a law, a particle, energy, or even something we have no understanding of. It could be gravity or might be light. Perhaps it is just something completely unknown to us. The thing with the Something option is that because this option has to be non-intelligent, unaware, and possessing no consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that whatever this something is, it must obviously possesses the IQ of zero. Because it lacks awareness and cannot make intelligent conscious decisions, some questions need to be asked. How does an eternal dead something give birth to consciousness? How does one know for sure that this something that caused the universe doesn’t itself possess that consciousness, after all it produced it. Also, why is it that the non-thinking Something came up with better inventions and designs than humans who possess consciousness, a mind, and intelligence.  Surely a dead something with no intelligence could not outdo a conscious mind with an IQ of one. Yet, could Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton make a universe? Even if they could live for a billion years, I doubt it. Of course these great men would struggle to even understand 0.0001% of all that the universe had to offer, even if they could observe the universe from beginning to end. And considering that the whole universe was determined at the first moments of the Big Bang, then that gives this something with no intelligence less than a second to determine everything that the universe was, is now, and will be in the future. This also includes life, you, and planet Earth.

When you see the universe with its collection of billions of galaxies, it does seems ludicrous that something with the IQ equivalent to a potato produced complex design and invention to such a degree that the combined intelligence and creativity of the human race is not even comparable. We can at best copy fractions of that which we find in nature and the universe. Is it really possible that something with the IQ of zero and no consciousness can come up with better technology than any conscious being? And how does a non-conscious anything assemble the micro and the macro into one huge system that is so complex it is beyond our ability to understand it all? We do not even have a conclusive Theory of Everything yet.

You could counter this argument by saying that a computer has no consciousness or awareness, and yet it harbors cyberspace which contains digital worlds and places where conscious beings can inhabit or interact. But that argument is moot when we consider that every part of a computer and cyberspace and its contained digital worlds are all the direct result of intelligence and the consciousness of man. A computer harbouring cyberspace could not come from nothing. It has a creator. Further, consciousness is not part of the computer as it is immaterial of itself. So is it even part of the physical universe at all. People who interact through the Internet are not part of the Internet itself, but are able to use it. Is the Universe really any different for conscious beings?

The other major thing that doesn’t bode well for the Something option is that this option also assumes that the universe or existence didn’t really have a beginning. You might argue strongly against that, but we already know why it has to be eternal. If the something that caused the universe was not eternal, infinite, existing forever, then it must have come from either nothing or an earlier something in which case we need to follow the causes till we arrive at the first cause or something. If that first something is not infinite, then it came from nothing, and we are back at the Nothing option. In addition, scientists over the last 50 years have been adamant in their belief that the universe had a beginning. Of course they could be wrong, but that is what they have been teaching the world for decades now. But I expect them to change their mind when they realise the true implications of a beginning. Anyway, I digress.

Let’s recap. The something option must assume that something has always existed in one form or another.

The weakness with this option for many is that design, complexity, logic, patterns, laws, and life, and even code such as DNA suggests very strongly that there is an  almighty consciousness at work. Many argue that these attributes are the result of a mind, perhaps even a programmer. It is for these people, far more likely that the universe is a product rather than the universe being the maker or cause of itself. It is like believing that a garage, car, or computer had always existed or that they can exist without a creator or maker. We have all heard this argument before. A complex watch suggests that there is a watchmaker.

One of the biggest hurdles with not including a consciousness of some kind in the creation process is the fact that consciousness exists. You are the proof of that. “I think, therefore I am” said the philosopher and one of the ancient names for God is “I am”. If existence started with no life or intelligence, then would life and intelligence exist today? It is a bit like arguing that the Universe came from nothing to suggest that consciousness came from something non-conscious.

Further, imagine a universe without life. Does it really exist if there is no observer? In many scientific experiments done at quantum level, they seem to indicate that some things do not happen unless they are observed. Upon observation, the result changes or becomes certain. This has led many scientists to believe that reality and time are an illusion. Is the universe the creator of consciousness or is consciousness the creator of the universe? Not many ask this. Further, we have all observed that life comes from life. Understanding this, we know that we came from our mother and she from her mother and so on. If we follow the timeline backward, it is logical that someone or some life form had to be the oldest or the first living thing. Like all things, there had to be a first. The same thinking leads us to the Big Bang theory. Just play the movie back and there had to be the first thing. But how many have considered that if we only ever observe life come from life, then the first life could well be an eternal life? If not then that first life came from non-life. Thus the observable facts to date do not point to life coming from non-life, and while it has certainly been tried, no one has ever produced life from non-living matter, nor have they ever made a dead creature come alive again. If the first living thing is not eternal, then consciousness sprung from nothing or at least something not possessing the attribute of consciousness. This option is starting to sound like the Nothing option when you probe deep enough.

The Something option also seems like a non-starter when you have thought it through. The problem is that most people do not think things through. They just don’t devote enough time to think about such things and often their conclusions are based on things they have read here and there, but they themselves have not thought about it deeply enough. Also, predefined beliefs can skew people away from asking such basic questions. It seems after some thought that the Something option is almost as silly like the Nothing option. Not quite as foolish, but folly all the same.

The Someone option

So this leaves us with the Someone option. But for many this idea is also ludicrous? The idea that a god/consciousness created the universe or everything is of course not new. In fact it is the most believed of all the options and has been the standard premise in the history of the world. Even the early years of science was not about explaining the universe without God, but more about explaining how God created things. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived staunchly believed that God created the universe. Included are big names like the father of physics and creator of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton. Other big names include: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein. Speaking of the latter, Einstein never came to belief in a personal God, but he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.

However, regardless of the fact that many believe in the existence of a god of some kind, the idea that God created the universe also seems foolish to many. It is obviously ludicrous to Atheists otherwise they would at least be Agnostic. Questions and protests that naturally arise from the idea that a god created the universe is “who made God”, “does God have a God?”, “what was before God?, “religion causes wars”, etc. Such questions and reasons however have little or nothing to do with why there might be a god.

Take the question “Who created God?”. The answer is simple, God is eternal. If God wasn’t eternal. then he wouldn’t be God. If God exists, then this God must be infinite, otherwise there was something before God meaning that God is not God. It is like asking the question, ‘what was before infinity’?

To the Atheist though, the idea of a creator is almost as offensive as believing in the existence of the tooth fairy. However, as much as your intellect may or may not be offended, it has to be said that the Someone/God option is still one of three possible options and surely it wouldn’t be fair to just write this option off based on bias or conflicting belief, especially if you have no evidence, logic, or argument to the contrary. Unfortunately this is what many do. They discard this option because of bias even though nobody has proof that there is no God. The argument is often made that you do not need to prove that there is no God, however that assumption is wrong. It is no different to wanting proof if you stated that there was no intelligent life outside of Earth.

As for the idea that belief in God causes wars, well people who do not believe in God also cause wars. The reality is that man causes wars. And what effect does a religious war have on the existence of God anyway? Absolutely no effect at all. The reality is people fight over all kinds of things, often politics, power and land. Even so-called religious wars are often about these things when you delve in to it. Regardless, these rebuttals against a god have no bearing on there being a God at all.

But let’s be rational about this. Can there really be an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe? Is this idea as ludicrous as the Nothing and Something options we have already explored? Where is the proof of this God now? Or is it possible that God is so far removed from many people’s everyday and lifetime experience, that they simply do not believe that he could exist based on the lack of experiencing this God. Could it be that you cannot measure an infinite God using finite tools of which we are limited to? But should we then just take it on faith that there is a God? Well we do believe in many things that we have never seen such as black holes or even the Big Bang itself. We often work out the existence of something in the universe if mathematics makes it possible and in mathematics we do have infinity. Some things are simply deduced by deduction while proof of their existence is often beyond actually seeing them. So which of the three options is the most likely then? Are they all ludicrous? Is one option better than the others? Surely one of these three options has to be correct, because they cover every conceivable idea. There is no theory as to the origin of the universe that doesn’t come under one of these three headings: Nothing, Something, or Someone.

The only option

Let’s start with some basic logic and a process of deduction to see which of the three ludicrous options it must be true. Remember, that one of the options must be true and only one. (Good luck trying to come up with a fourth option if you think these headings are insufficient.)

If you think that the universe popped into existence from nothing, then that is obviously the nothing option. If it had a cause or always existed but is non-conscious, then that is the something option. If the universe is sitting inside a the vaults of a matrix-style computer made by a higher intelligence, or if God spoke the universe into being, then that is the Someone option. No matter what idea you come up with, it will fit into one of these headings.

So let’s look at numbers. It is said that stats never lie and numbers are the language of logic, so let’s see what we can deduce from them. We know that the universe or multiverse (if you are that way inclined) is very very big and is made up of very very small things. Let’s imagine the universe as a really big number. So how do we get instances of really big numbers or small numbers for that matter? That is easy. If we start with infinity, then using simple sums, we can come up with every number imaginable including zero. This is also what we observe in the universe. We see a huge amount of phenomenon and things in the universe both big and small. But what happens if we start with zero? Well, we end in zero. Zero stays zero forever. Unless you add a finite number to zero somehow (apply a cause), you will stay with zero. So what does this prove? It simply means that even the most basic logic tells us that if there was truly nothing before the universe, then there would be no universe now. There would be nothing and no one, so no one to observe nothing. However, if the first cause was infinite, then it would explain the incredible amount of finites and zeros that we see. Thus, even the most basic of logic tells us that the first thing or cause of the universe had to be infinite, there is no way around this.

Whatever was first had to have no cause because that is the definition of first in this context. Once we understand that, then there are some interesting requirements that the original or first thing must have, such as it must be eternal or infinite. If the universe has life, then life is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has order, then order is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has design, then the source of the universe has the ability to design. The ingredients and products of the universe must also be present in the source of the universe, otherwise they come from nothing which we already know is impossible.

The final analysis

Let’s wrap this up. We can ignore the Nothing option as explained above, so we will look at the Something option instead. We know that this ludicrous something must be eternal, that it produced intelligence, can design, can program DNA code, give laws, impart life, even produce or possess non-physical traits like love and emotions. But is that not an exact description of God? God is described as a living conscious spirit (non-material being) that designed the universe, is intelligent, a law giver, programmer of code like DNA, eternal, and the source of love and life among an almost infinite amount of other things.

While the notion of a god creating the universe is offensive to some, it seems that it should at least be the least offensive option given all the alternatives. Of course there are billions of people who are not offended by the notion of God. Their quest is not what caused the universe, but WHO caused the universe and that of course is a completely different subject (not covered here). But remember this, just because people argue over who God is, that has no bearing on the existence of God at all.

When looking at what kick-started the universe and life, the following quote is very helpful:
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Arthur Conan Doyle.