It means something caused that

>>17029800
but time started with it, you cannot have cause without time innit doebeit

>>17029805
Yes you are right. Yet we live in a causal universe with entropy. An uncaused big bang means that everything you see around you is uncaused. The only logical answer is that something is outside of time and space made the universe

Spontaneous symmetry breaking of a vacuum Higgs field.

>>17029810
>An uncaused big bang means that everything you see around you is uncaused.
nope. everything you see around is caused by something else you can follow back to the big bang. it's clearly caused. me replying to your comment is caused by you posting yours. just because you cannot follow causation past the initial moment doesn't mean there must be some outside time thing. else time didn't start at the big bang. and afaik it mathematically results it did. it's not some open ended thing we decided to call "start of time". it's some math outcome

>>17029816
> just because you cannot follow causation past the initial moment doesn't mean there must be some outside time thing.
It does. You cannot make a logical statement defending this thinking. You answer to the origin of the universe is "The big bang happened because it happened". This isn't a logical statement

>>17029822
>This isn't a logical statement
your "logic" doesn't extend outside the sandbox doe. not sure why you are expecting it to. you seem to make some fundamentally wrong assumptions because it's somehow intuitive or sum shit
you need to prove your "muh chimp logic makes sense in any conceivable dimension/universe or whatever the fuck is or isn't, whatever the fuck is or isn't means anyway" statement

>>17029827
All I'm saying is that you are illogical. The universe runs off of logic. That logic doesn't just go away because you said so. The question is "where did the universe come from?". If after you answer this question you can still again ask "well what came before that?" Then you have not answered the question.

>>17029832
>The question is "where did the universe come from?".
I keep trying to make you understand your question is nonsensical yet you keep insisting in formulating it, for some reason. so I am not sure I can make you understand where you are wrong

>>17029810
All that does is move the goalposts. If the Big Bang had an outside cause, the outside cause must have an outside cause.

>>17029837
It clearly isn't nonsensical. Even the most reddit scientists wouldn't say that. You say "X exists because X exists". That is nonsense
>>17029850
It doesn't actually because the outside stuff doesn't have to necessarily obey the logical rules of the material universe.

>>17029797
>colossal explosion
First, would an explosion imply a collision?
Secondly, collision of what?

>>17029850
Don’t engage with this “google till I find proof for god” muzzie archetype it isn’t worth it. The universe was randomly made and Jesus is god

>>17029797
Violence is God?

>>17029805
I've seen a number of times it mentioned as "meaningful time" started at the big bang. If there was no time at all then nothing would ever move and nothing would ever happen

>>17029810
Your mistake is assuming that the universe is all of reality which magically began not just another globule of matter like galaxy clusters/galaxies/solar systems/planetary systems/atoms (which just coincidentally all happen to form the same wavefunction like structure but definitely aren't the exact same thing at different scales)

>>17029797
No, reality began when your consciousness awakened. Then it had determined that the origins may lie at the explosive event. Not a colossal explosion event but a tiny microscopic one

>>17029850
Everything we understand about how things work, including time and cause and effect, comes from observations within the universe. So if that all started with the big bang or whatever, then we can't apply that logic to "what caused it."

>>17029797
Actually the observable universe we can see might be the inside of a massive black hole. Let that sink in then google it.