<p>The question seems to be based on the notion "before". This notion relies of the concept of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time" rel="noreferrer">arrow of time</a>, meaning time "flowing" in some "direction". The arrow of time itself is based, among others, on the notion of "time".</p>

<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch" rel="noreferrer">Planck epoch</a> - the first epoch of the current Big Bang model - lasted a little less than $10^{-43}\mbox{ s}$. That's the shortest unit of time. To ask within this short time interval for an arrow of time doesn't make any sense. Hence a before/after didn't exist within  the Planck epoch, and hence asking for a "before" isn't meaningful within the Planck epoch.</p>

<p>The Planck epoch to be able to exist needs the mere existence of space and time, not yet an arrow of time.</p>

<p>The cause for the existence of space and time at all is a matter of the pre-Planck epoch. In this phase using any notion which is based on space or time isn't meaningful. Cause and effect in the temporal sense, which underly most "why?"-questions, are based on time, and are meaningless in this epoch.</p>

<p>It's possible to construct other "pre-Big-Bang" models. But it's hard to find observational evidence for any of them.</p>

<p>If you suggest a creator of whatever kind, you just push the ultimate question a little bit further to the "past", and making it much more complicated. How could a creator be created, able to create such a complex thing like the universe? You need a chain of ever more complex meta-creators without end.</p>

<p>If you argue, that the first creator doesn't need a cause to exist, this applies also for the universe, formed from a pre-Planck medium. Hence nothing would be won.</p>

<p>Therefore it's rather unlikely, that religion or philosophy could be able to provide a more satisfying answer than science.</p>

<p>(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" rel="noreferrer">Here</a> some metaphysical multiverse theories.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-04T11:44:13.087Z
2014-05-04T12:28:39.717Z
2014-05-04T12:28:39.717Z
Gerald
<p>Science is trying to explain how the universe is made. The beginning of the universe explains the Big Bang theory. But what happened before Big Bang? Science cannot go before that. So, does this mean that always there be space for religion and philosophy to explain things that science cannot?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-03T11:50:21.217Z
Just because we cannot explain something now doesn't mean that we would never be able to explain it. By the way, I think this question belongs to philosophy.stackexchange.com
Yashbhatt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-03T15:19:08.993Z
We use science to analyze questions that philosophy and religion can't answer. Not the other way around. If religion could explain what happened before the Big Bang, it would have done so 6,000 years ago.
David H
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-03T16:35:09.600Z
This question does not appear to be about astronomy, within the scope defined in the [help].
TildalWave
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-04T03:25:09.473Z
@davidH I disagree. Religion is used to explain the things that science cannot (yet). I am not saying I am religious myself, but merely when something cannot be explained with our current thinking, people often turn to religion. For example the stellar dome and the 'fact' that the world was created in 6 days (plus a day of rest) by an all powerful being called God.
damned truths
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-04T22:53:34.473Z
The universe is an expanding bubble of light followed by matter right?, past that I believe there is enough void/nothing between our expanding universe and many other expanding universes, and a void that is ever expanding, why should there only be one if everything in the universe has many of many, so once our universe bubble only has black holes left, gravity will pull enough of them together and once that happens there will be enough gravity to implode into another universe bubble, rinse and repeat, and our universe current bubble is just one in an energy soup of many others. my2Cent hehe ;p
Lawrence Cherone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-04T23:28:51.640Z
I said *void/nothing between our expanding universe and many other expanding universes* I couldn't fit in *pockets of subatomic practicals leftover quarks, leptons and bosons from other bubbles within the vacuumed void between our expanding universe and many other expanding universes* ;p just to clear that up
Lawrence Cherone
<universe><big-bang-theory>
Does science need support from religion or philosophy to explain the creation?
user1550
# Does science need support from religion or philosophy to explain the creation?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-03)

Science is trying to explain how the universe is made. The beginning of the universe explains the Big Bang theory. But what happened before Big Bang? Science cannot go before that. So, does this mean that always there be space for religion and philosophy to explain things that science cannot?

**Tags:** universe, big-bang-theory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Just because we cannot explain something now doesn't mean that we would never be able to explain it. By the way, I think this question belongs to philosophy.stackexchange.com  
> **username_2**: We use science to analyze questions that philosophy and religion can't answer. Not the other way around. If religion could explain what happened before the Big Bang, it would have done so 6,000 years ago.  
> **username_3**: This question does not appear to be about astronomy, within the scope defined in the [help].  
> **username_4**: @davidH I disagree. Religion is used to explain the things that science cannot (yet). I am not saying I am religious myself, but merely when something cannot be explained with our current thinking, people often turn to religion. For example the stellar dome and the 'fact' that the world was created in 6 days (plus a day of rest) by an all powerful being called God.  
> **username_5**: The universe is an expanding bubble of light followed by matter right?, past that I believe there is enough void/nothing between our expanding universe and many other expanding universes, and a void that is ever expanding, why should there only be one if everything in the universe has many of many, so once our universe bubble only has black holes left, gravity will pull enough of them together and once that happens there will be enough gravity to implode into another universe bubble, rinse and repeat, and our universe current bubble is just one in an energy soup of many others. my2Cent hehe ;p  
> **username_5**: I said *void/nothing between our expanding universe and many other expanding universes* I couldn't fit in *pockets of subatomic practicals leftover quarks, leptons and bosons from other bubbles within the vacuumed void between our expanding universe and many other expanding universes* ;p just to clear that up  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-05-04. Score: 5

The question seems to be based on the notion "before". This notion relies of the concept of the [arrow of time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time), meaning time "flowing" in some "direction". The arrow of time itself is based, among others, on the notion of "time".

The [Planck epoch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch) - the first epoch of the current Big Bang model - lasted a little less than $10^{-43}\mbox{ s}$. That's the shortest unit of time. To ask within this short time interval for an arrow of time doesn't make any sense. Hence a before/after didn't exist within the Planck epoch, and hence asking for a "before" isn't meaningful within the Planck epoch.

The Planck epoch to be able to exist needs the mere existence of space and time, not yet an arrow of time.

The cause for the existence of space and time at all is a matter of the pre-Planck epoch. In this phase using any notion which is based on space or time isn't meaningful. Cause and effect in the temporal sense, which underly most "why?"-questions, are based on time, and are meaningless in this epoch.

It's possible to construct other "pre-Big-Bang" models. But it's hard to find observational evidence for any of them.

If you suggest a creator of whatever kind, you just push the ultimate question a little bit further to the "past", and making it much more complicated. How could a creator be created, able to create such a complex thing like the universe? You need a chain of ever more complex meta-creators without end.

If you argue, that the first creator doesn't need a cause to exist, this applies also for the universe, formed from a pre-Planck medium. Hence nothing would be won.

Therefore it's rather unlikely, that religion or philosophy could be able to provide a more satisfying answer than science.

([Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) some metaphysical multiverse theories.)


---

