The beginning of the universe

Absolute nothing is complete nothingness. If something come out of it, it never was absolute nothing to begin with.

 

I never used your term to describe anything. And you didn't ask what Krauss meant by Nothing (he capitalizes it when using it instead of the traditional idea of nothing.

You can read for yourself because it's quite complex and you can get it right from the source:

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/10/19/lawrence-m-krauss-a-universe-from-nothing/

 

Who cares? You chose to introduce "complete nothingness" not me. Think a bit beyond your preconceived notions for a moment. Here's direct from Krauss:

“By nothing, I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing—in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space.”6 Just as nothing is not really nothing, so, too, empty space is not really empty because Krauss fills it with energy in the form of matter and antimatter. The reason “empty space” can be considered empty, according to Krauss, is because, while the empty space is filled with matter and antimatter, those two forces cancel each other out through mutual annihilation. One wonders, when the matter/antimatter forces of empty space annihilate each other, to what level of nothingness do they go since they already “reside” in one level of nothingness? Nevertheless, such mutual annihilation is called “symmetry.”
So how does Krauss explain the way in which the universe came to exist out of this “nothingness” he calls “empty space”? Here’s how:
Scientists began to understand in the 1970s…that it is possible to begin with equal amounts of matter and antimatter in an early hot, dense Big Bang, and for plausible quantum processes to “create something from nothing” by establishing a small asymmetry, with a slight excess of matter over antimatter in the early universe. Then, instead of complete annihilation of matter and antimatter, leading to nothing but pure radiation today, all of the available antimatter in the early universe could have annihilated with matter, but the small excess of matter would have had no comparable amount of antimatter to annihilate with, and would then be left over. This would then lead to all the matter making up stars and galaxies we see in the universe today.7

http://www.equip.org/article/the-new-nothingness-a-look-at-lawrence-krausss-a-universe-from-nothing/

 

Who cares? If we are not dealing with absolute nothing, then we are dealing with something.

 

And....?

 

And the question becomes- where did that something come from?

 

The nothingness before the Big Bang is because it is at the moment of the Big Bang that space, time, and energy came into existence out of nothing. Read the book...I linked it for you. We can play chicken/egg all day but learn and accomplish nothing. At least I've given you the tool (book) to learn a perspective different from your own. How you use it is up to you.

 

And I'll link a book to you.

http://quran.com/

 

Do you have one based upon empirical evidence by any chance?

 

Do you have empirical evidence that empirical evidence is the only form of truth?

 

evidence that cannot be observed is not evidence.

its just fantasy

 

Evidence?

 

That was rhetorical, right? Tongue-in-cheek type question.

 

it's called quantum physics

 

That's like saying: God did it.

 

God doesn't know Physics

 

Not at all. Quantum physics is science. It is based on a system of mathematics and empirical observations that has been proven true in multiple scientific experiments time and time again. Much of our technology relies on the quantum mechanics. None of that is true for "god."

 

you have no way of knowing this.

 

Singularity?

 

doesn't prove there wasn't an expanding universe prior to it.

 

So, it may have existed, ceased to exist, and was brought back into existence. That makes much more sense.

 

strawman.

you don't know what existed prior to the big bang. you can't say there wasn't an expanding universe at some point prior to the big bang, because you don't know there wasn't.

 

Regardless, it makes no sense for the singularity to expand, if that's all that ever existed.

 

One must find God before making such accusations. The creation of our universe is simply by God. It is only fitting that it was created. Nothing else makes sense.

The Darwin theory makes me laugh every time. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, and why don't they have us in the zoo, instead of the other way around? To say we came from ocean life is ridiculous, you would think if that's true, we would be able to drink ocean water.

It is incomprehensible God's plan. Something the human mind cannot fathom. Maybe God wants us to figure it out, it's just we as humans will destroy each other before we could. The invention of the nuclear bomb is a perfect example. We are much more interested in spending time and money on things that would make us the most powerful person or country in the world, or world domination. When really, we should all come together to explore the vast structure of the universe. And what it is to be alive. Could you imagine all the money spent on all the countries military's, to be spent on universe exploration. And I mean all the money, like biological bombs, fighter jet's, tanks, the fuel and oil for them. Everything!!!

I would assume that if we did, we would have already found breathtaking planets, and ways to go further and faster then ever before. For instance, the moon should be our launch pad, and the pieces sent to it one at a time. This would allow for minimum gravity on the launch, while also providing more booster rockets. Say we get the craft going 25,000 mph, with six more booster engines still attached. I am no genius so I don't know if this would work, but in a place with no gravity it would seem once you get the craft to a top speed, by hitting the next booster your craft would go even faster. After allowing each booster to hit it's maximum before hitting the next you would think you would keep increasing speed. If one got you going 25,000 mph, then wouldn't you multiply that times how many boosters you had. For instance in this theory 6x25,000=150,000 mph. Or take what speed we can leave earth at, compensate for doing it on the moon instead, and I'm sure with just the technology we have now, we can get close or beyond one million mph. Especially if all countries are involved. Wow, what spectacular time that would be!!

 

You misunderstand these ideas because you refuse to believe them, yet you choose to believe something with no evidence at all. Perhaps a deeper understanding of Natural Selection would help you know that the "apes" we evolved from are not the apes you see today. That's a very common misconception that demonstrates a lack of understanding of that which you argue against. Until you understand it, how can you confidently refute it other than "God did it"? Even if God did do it, even theologians have concurred with the big bang and evolution. Catholic popes, for example, agreed and hold the contention that all of that required something to cause it, which is where they believe God came in. Part of that goes back to Pope Francis' discussion about people thinking God had a big magic wand and things just popped into being, but he contends that's not how it happened but that God prompted the universe that is billions of years old.

You've made many assumptions in your statements without a scientific understanding to support them. And there's no place in the universe without gravity.

Here's more info:

Source: http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/intro-human-evolution