Are there any scientific papers that state this? From my reading, many scientists have proposed that there could have been quantum states and energy that preceded the emergence of our universe.
I see.
So the kalam argues that the big bang came from nothing. But we dont know if thats the case.
But i guess WLC chooses to stick with nothing before the big bang.
Not really. To be sure, that interpretation of the Big Bang squares nicely with the argument. However, the Kalam says that the universe must necessarily have come from nothing. If the Big Bang were still unknown or could be demonstrated conclusively not to be an emergence of matter from nothing, the argument would still be the same.
So even if the universe is causeless the argument stands?
im a little confused.
You seem to be equating the âBig Bangâ with âthe only possible event when the universe was causedââwhen our physical reality emerged from a totally non-material state, from an absolute nothing.
The ultimate cause of the emergence of our reality from nothing (not to be more confusing, but I have to say, if that ever happened, or even means anything) could be entirely separate from the Big Bang.
1 Like
I am really confused now, sorry!
So what you are saying is that the Big bang wasnât the true start of the universe and that something else caused the big bang? Am i getting it right? 
Sorry, Iâm trying to keep my English as easy to process as I can!
In short, yes. 
We donât know that the Big Bang was an emergence from nothing. If it wasnât, then there was something else. If the universe didnât literally emerge from nothing at that point, nothing says that the ultimate emergence of our reality couldnât have happened during some other event.
1 Like
Ahh i see. But that doesnât change the core principle of the kalam,It still works if the big bang wasnât the universal cause? Cause then we can argue âHas the universe got a cause or notâ And this is what the guys above are discussing. Have i got it all right in my mind now?
Sorry iâm still learning.
**"three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einsteinâs Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didnât appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We donât know. We donât know where it came from, why itâs here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didnât exist and neither did we. **
From the official Big Bang Website.
_@pevaquark
show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open.
The paper does seem to show that quantum fluctuations might be able to create a new universe of the math is right, however a quantum metastable false vacuum does not sound like absolute nothing, outside of time, and space as well as without matter and energy
Of course I do not know how God created the universe out of nothing, but I can say that all the evidence points to that conclusion. The fact is that it is not because we have no natural explanation that I can say God did it, but because we know that all natural things are finite, which means they have a beginning in time and space.
We know that even time and space are finite and have a beginning and an ending. We know that E = mc squared which means that matter, energy, time, and space are interdependent and not absolute, meaning eternal contrary to what many scientists and philosophers thought.
If natural means finite and it does, then for the universe to be natural it must have a beginning and that beginning or Source must not be natural. Therefore God is a ânaturalâ explanation for the origin of the universe. God is consistent with its nature.
I never said that the Big Bang Theory said that God created the universe. On the other hand you cannot say that it says nothing about Who created the universe. As far as I can see it says that Who or Whatever created the universe must be beyond the physical, which includes time and space. That seems to narrow down the field considerably.
Right, thatâs how I see it!
Cause then we can argue âHas the universe got a cause or notâ And this is what the guys above are discussing. Have i got it all right in my mind now?
I believe so. I havenât checked the deep science discussion there too closelyâthat is another language to me 
Yes same here too difficult for me.
But then i donât see how the universe could come from nothing.
Do we even know if it was nothing?
Thanks for being patient with me though!
Edit; I think i understand what WLC thinks right now.
He seems to argue that God is a more reasonable explanation than nothing.
I donât even know what ânothingâ is frankly. Even the word âisâ would not seem to apply to it.
Yes cause nothing literally is No Thing.
And given that God is clearly not nothing, this whole nothing thing does cause me some confusion. Well, time for bed around these parts! Nice chatting.
I understand what you are saying. But then again Pevaquark is arguing ( i think) That it is possible for quantum mechanics to cause the big bang. And i think quantum fields could have been there before the big bang. If this was the case: Beats me.
So to me you can either believe that no quantum mechanic has caused the universe and that God is a better explanation. Or you think that Quantum mechanics are indeed the cause of the big bang.
Those are the 2 ways i see it.
Edit: Fixed a mistake.
Edit: Also could quantum mechanics even arise before the Big bang? Cause if the Big bang gave rise to everything even time and space. Then it could be (with our current understanding) that there was absolutely nothing.
Have a good night!
Hey, I like the nanosecond: itâs the time it takes light to travel one foot (give or take a little).
1 Like
The Kalam argument is an argument from Aristotelian philosophy. In fact the name indicates it is Islamic in origin. My argument is from science, the Big Bag Theory, although it uses the Bible and philosophy to move that distance from the fact that the universe was created ex nihilo to God created the universe ex nihilo.
They are two separate, but similar arguments.
Yes i knew that the argument had an islamic origin.
But are you not using the kalam then?
Not really. The other is much better.
could quantum mechanics even arise before the Big bang?
Absolutely not. And I think the Big Bang and the universe would have been very different if it had arisen from quantum physics.
Now youâve got it.