History of the Universe and Earth

[Your Computer]

I like to believe that the universe is spherical and finite (though i don't mean to imply from the word "finite" that it is small, but insanely large), but also formulated into layers. I've found the wiki article on Olber's paradox to be an interesting read, though i don't necessarily find the counter explanations as evidence for an infinite universe.

Question 1: If the Big Bang is true there isn't something before the Big Bang. No time, no space, no anything. It just happened.
Question 3: Nothing made the Big Bang. It just happened. If you are going to say that God created the Big Bang then excuse me but I'll have to ask:Where did god come from? If you say that this is an unanswerable question then why not save a step and conclude that the creation of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if you say that God always existed why not save a step and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creator. This is not an easy question.

Although my fields of study don't really involve the sciences, i don't see what you present as difficult to respond to or explain. All truth is logical, even though all things logical may not be true, so at least we could leave out absurdities like nothing --> something. Then again, i also know some people would argue that logic or the "laws of nature" break down or simply do not exist (perhaps to go on to say that the "laws of nature" were created shortly after the start of the big bang) at the "beginning of time." But logic would tell us that too is an absurdity. So we can derive from this examination that nothing cannot create something, and that some form of recipe (with "ingredients"!) or "laws of nature" had to exist, for if they didn't, nothing would have resulted from the big bang event, for there would be no event to begin with.

So from this consideration we can derive that something(!) had to exist before the event (and at least the laws of thermodynamics won't be contradicted! ). It should be safe to assume that at least one of the things that pre-date the big bang, therefore, are the "laws" of nature that are observable today and have remained unchanged. And today we observe that the universe is "expanding." Unless you can point out to me forces (whether gravitational or not) or "laws" of nature that can and will reverse this "expansion," that is, cause the universe to "contract," it should be perfectly safe to assume that any contraction would not occur naturally, especially to where it causes universal deconstruction of matter (as i would assume that would require an extremely large amount of energy, perhaps an infinite amount).

So if such a contraction cannot occur naturally, may require an infinite amount of energy, the "laws" observable today applied back then too, i would find that a conscious entity who's omnipotent (i.e. greater than the universe) to be a suitable and logical explanation for any "big bang" event. Yes, this allows for things other than this conscious entity to be eternal in their nature; however(!), this "eternal" characteristic could only be demanded for this conscious entity (and therefore not demanded for the other things), for this conscious entity has to be able to pre-date everything else, or else infinite regressions are met. Consider that, if this conscious entity did not exist and the other things pre-dated the big bang event therefore implying that the big bang event occurred naturally, that an infinite regression would be necessarily met. This is because of the assumption that the same laws observable today pre-date the big bang. Therefore, if the big bang event occurred naturally, it would only be in due time that the universe will contract and form another big bang event, and another, and another, ad infinitum.