In the beginning...

[Darkstorn]

It can also be a literary work based on imagination rather than on fact, like a novel or short story.

It's right there in your own definition. His post doesn't imply anything except that it's fiction. I believe it's actually you who chooses to load the word with undue bias.

 

[Polymath257]

Vocabulary.com/dictionary/fiction ...

fiction​

A fiction is a deliberately fabricated account of something. It can also be a literary work based on imagination rather than on fact, like a novel or short story.

The Latin word fictus means “to form,” which seems like a good source for the English word fiction, since fiction is formed in the imagination. Like its literary cousins fable, legend, and myth, however, fiction has a slightly darker additional meaning: a deliberate lie or untruth. When we talk about "the line between fact and fiction," we're talking about the difference between truth and lies.​

No, not the line between truth and lies. The line between truth and falsehood. Falsehoods are never facts, but they are not necessarily lies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe it's actually you who chooses to load the word with undue bias.

OK

 

[Darkstorn]

OK

I admit it's merely my view of things. But i think i arrived to the outcome rationally.

He said it's not loaded with the bias you're claiming, and i have no reason to think of him as a liar. So, i do believe him when he's making a claim of his personal motivations.

 

[Polymath257]

Vocabulary.com/dictionary/fiction ...

fiction​

A fiction is a deliberately fabricated account of something. It can also be a literary work based on imagination rather than on fact, like a novel or short story.

The Latin word fictus means “to form,” which seems like a good source for the English word fiction, since fiction is formed in the imagination. Like its literary cousins fable, legend, and myth, however, fiction has a slightly darker additional meaning: a deliberate lie or untruth. When we talk about "the line between fact and fiction," we're talking about the difference between truth and lies.​

Would you prefer the term 'myth'? How about 'legend'? Both have the connotation of not being 'true', but still being believed by many.

 

[corynski]

Can any cosmology evolutionist answer these questions for me?


In the beginning...

1) If there is space, energy and time but no matter, can anything be created?

2) If there is energy, time and matter but no space, where would anything created be placed?

3) If there is time, matter and space but no energy, how could anything be created?

4) If there is matter, space and energy but no time, when could anything be created?

5) Where did space, energy, time and matter come from?

6) Is the universe finite or infinite and if, it is infinite, can the age be determined?

7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.

Seems more logical to assume that 'it', i.e. everything, has always been here, and there has not been a 'creation'........ only constant transformation, evolution and/or whatever else. But, obviously, this is only a theory with no real evidence.

 

[Ted Evans]

Seems more logical to assume that 'it', i.e. everything, has always been here, and there has not been a 'creation'........ only constant transformation, evolution and/or whatever else. But, obviously, this is only a theory with no real evidence.

The honesty is appreciated. What is difficult for me to understand is that those that adamantly oppose supernatural creation in this group and seem to write with authority on the subject, goes from, it has always existed, it came into being at the BB, but cannot say when and how the space where the BB was located came into existence, space, matter, energy and time were not needed, to, no one knows, which is the only one that makes sense to me. It is like demanding that everything adheres to the natural laws but they cannot prove their views with natural laws or where and how those laws came into existence. The only thing they seem to know for absolute certain is, there was no God that had anything to do with it.

 

[Darkstorn]

The honesty is appreciated. What is difficult for me to understand is that those that adamantly oppose supernatural creation in this group and seem to write with authority on the subject, goes from, it has always existed, it came into being at the BB, but cannot say when and how the space where the BB was located came into existence, space, matter, energy and time were not needed, to, no one knows, which is the only one that makes sense to me. It is like demanding that everything adheres to the natural laws but they cannot prove their views with natural laws or where and how those laws came into existence. The only thing they seem to know for absolute certain is, there was no God that had anything to do with it.

All i see is a lot of projection and claims of what other people do. You cannot read minds.

But basically, you are making accusations of people without verifying said accusations to be true, and yet demand this of your opponents in an argument:

"7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories."

So, where's the empirical scientific evidence to support your claims?

 

[Polymath257]

The honesty is appreciated. What is difficult for me to understand is that those that adamantly oppose supernatural creation in this group and seem to write with authority on the subject, goes from, it has always existed, it came into being at the BB, but cannot say when and how the space where the BB was located came into existence, space, matter, energy and time were not needed, to, no one knows, which is the only one that makes sense to me. It is like demanding that everything adheres to the natural laws but they cannot prove their views with natural laws or where and how those laws came into existence. The only thing they seem to know for absolute certain is, there was no God that had anything to do with it.

There was no 'space' where the singularity of the BB was located. That is sort of the requirement to be a singularity. And if no singularity existed, then there is no issue, right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would you prefer the term 'myth'? How about 'legend'? Both have the connotation of not being 'true', but still being believed by many.

I fully accept -- even embrace -- both, along with terms such as "founders' tale"/"folk history," "etiological narrative," and polemic where appropriate. And, finally, there are 'books' such as the Job, Jonah, and Esther which I interpret as fiction.

I hold the Tanakh to be a serious work, sustained and evolved over generations of transmission by serious people making a serious effort to discern and understand who they were, what they were, and why they were.

Please consider reading ...

WE ENTER THE TALMUD BAREFOOT​

The article is somewhat long and you are not likely to agree with it, but you'll end with a somewhat better sense of my perspective.

 

[Polymath257]

I fully accept -- even embrace -- both, along with terms such as "founders' tale"/"folk history," "etiological narrative," and polemic where appropriate. And, finally, there are 'books' such as the Job, Jonah, and Esther which I interpret as fiction.

I hold the Tanakh to be a serious work, sustained and evolved over generations of transmission by serious people making a serious effort to discern and understand who they were, what they were, and why they were.

Please consider reading ...

WE ENTER THE TALMUD BAREFOOT​

The article is somewhat long and you are not likely to agree with it, but you'll end with a somewhat better sense of my perspective.

OK, from my position, the terms myth, fiction, and legend are pretty close to synonymous.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I will admit, that sounds very authoritative but, how are you going to prove it, scientifically?

Would you say that “something” could have been God?

Good question... In short, no. And here's why:

If you have a problem with a Universe "originating" from a condensed point into what you see today because of the admitted complexity of that starting point, then you must have an even bigger problem with the preexistence of an infinitely more complex being existing prior to that, right? The requirements for god to exist, according to own argument, are even more problematic than that of a Universe expanding out of a simple pool of ingredients.

I agree, something cannot come from nothing but the question is, how did that "something" get wherever it was? Can you answer that with empirical science?

No, I cannot. I don't have those answers and I would wager that no one ever will.
The tough part, and what theologians have the hardest time with, is admitting that they don't know either.

Sounds like magic to me so I will wait for you to prove that space, time, energy and matter have always been here, there, somewhere, oh, and with empirical science, your word does not convince me.

space-time | physics
energy | physics
matter | physics

Please read these, top to bottom, and then ask this question again.
Unless you can point to a period of Cosmological history where any of these things can be shown to have existed independent of the other, then you're asking a nonsensical question.

I agree, science cannot answer that question, with empirical science.

That's because it's a question that cannot be answered.

We are a product of a four-dimensional, ever-expanding Universe. Looking outside of the boundary of our very existence is impossible. You're free to speculate on what might be beyond that boundary line, but I suggest you do it with a discipline that has provided more answers to these questions than any other field of study in the history of knowledge; Physics.

How can that be true when you say that space, matter, time and energy have always been? Your suggestion seems to be there was a "starting point" does it not?

All of the evidence seems to suggest a condensed point to this Universe, yes. But that doesn't even necessarily mean that there was a "beginning", if you really want to blow your mind.

All things are expanding, and accelerating. We can determine an object's velocity and trajectory and estimate where it was (or where it will be) at any given point in time, past or present. (Ever wonder how we know exactly when and where the moon will pass over your town in a couple of weeks, with down-to-the-second precision?) Doing that to lots of different celestial objects seems to suggest that everything, at some point a very long time ago relative to our understanding of time, sat scrunched up together in a very hot mass of simpler building blocks. We've made predictions about what types of things should have existed were that the case, and after decades (and sometimes centuries of study), we've discovered that those things, indeed, existed - like the cosmic microwave background...

That being said, it only answers questions about this Universe. There very well could be an infinite number of other Universes outside of our own, and there is at least some data which suggest that this is the case.

We can only study the stuff inside of that conical tube... What's outside of it, in the black? Can you answer that question with empirical evidence?

....Of course not.

Not having answers is OK. It's normal. It's how we learn.
Filling in gaps in understanding, however, with nothing more than wishful thinking and attempting to ridicule the science which has provided what few answers we do have is not the best way to go about ascertaining knowledge.

“Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…”

Really, no such thing? So you are saying this quote is completely wrong, is that right?

I don't know what the quote is from - but yes.
Spacetime exists, obviously. And it will pass by as it does with little regard to any other influences in the Universe. (See where your quote says "...from its own nature flows equably..."? That's the important part. But, no. There is no such thing as absolute time.

Any and all references to time that you've ever read refer only to the human perspective, based on the revolutions of planet Earth as it orbits the Sun. Your entire concept of time completely falls apart when you're on a different celestial object. This is true then not just of which object you're on, but what type of animal you are and what kind of lifespan you enjoy. All time is relative to perspective.

Think about it.

If, you have no interest in answering questions with verifiable evidence then you have no business responding to the questions, do you? Trying to make someone out as ignorant does not cover your inability to provide verifiable answers, only your diversion.

I'm not making you out as ignorant. I'm answering your questions, as best I can, while also showing flaws in your reasons for starting this thread. Assuming a theological answer when, if you're intellectually honest you know good and well that you can't verify, is a bit silly. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example, leaves many more questions than it does answers - it just sounds smart and so it solidifies some preconceived notions in the pious mind... I'm not being inflammatory. I'm asking you to think about it...

If you have a problem with a complex Universe evolving out of simpler condensed parts, but are accepting of an infinitely more complex being existing BEFORE the parts, then you're suffering from some pretty serious cognitive dissonance. The foundation of your argument is not consistent with your negations against the other. That's a problem, regardless of the god equation.

You're asking scientific questions about the nature and origins of reality itself. You're going to have to bend here a little bit and acknowledge that most of those questions are going to require theoretical answers because that's quite simply the best we can do. If you don't like that part of the response, then you need to brush up on why this is so.

 

[gnostic]

The honesty is appreciated. What is difficult for me to understand is that those that adamantly oppose supernatural creation in this group and seem to write with authority on the subject, goes from, it has always existed, it came into being at the BB, but cannot say when and how the space where the BB was located came into existence, space, matter, energy and time were not needed, to, no one knows, which is the only one that makes sense to me.

Ted, I don't think the problem is with the Big Bang theory.

I think the real problem is that you are failing to understand and that you have some hang-up with because it doesn't fall into line of your belief in creationism.

If you don't understand, that's okay, because all you need to do is ask some questions, and hopefully someone here will be able to explain to you what it is or how it work.

One of the things you must understand about the Big Bang cosmology is that it covered many different but overlapping fields.

To understand BB model, you need to understand gravity, according to the General Relativity (GR), because it is one of the main component of the BB framework. Without GR, there are no way you would understand BB. You would also need to know Special Relativity, regarding to the relation between mass and energy, and to the speed of light.

You would need to understand about how stars (as well as galaxies) were formed, how stars make matters or elements heavier than hydrogen and helium elements (this process is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis), and what would happen to stars when it can no longer fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, at this stage, the stars have reached the final stages of their life-cycle (red giant/white dwarfs, supernovas, neutron stars, black holes). Everything about the formation of stars and galaxies are known as Structure Formation in the BB cosmology.

Before stars and galaxies were formed for the first time in the universe, BB cosmology come to part of the universe's development, of how elements or matters were formed from subatomic particles, energy, and fields. All of these, would require understanding the combination of particle physics, nuclear physics and quantum physics.

The thing about the Big Bang, for lay-people like you and I, is that there are lot of information and data to process, and have to understand each process, working backward in time.

The unfortunate part, is we don't have the technology (yet) to observe or detect anything further back in time than the Recombination epoch of the Big Bang timeline. So going backward from the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (not to be confused with Stellar Nucleosynthesis) to the earliest epoch - the Planck epoch, it is unobservable, therefore much of the early epochs (before Recombination) are largely theoretical and hypothetical.

HOWEVER, scientists have done number of experiments in lab environments (eg the Large Hadron Collider, LHC), that give them better understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics (eg quark particles, neutrinos, photons, Higgs boson, etc), which in turn, allow scientists to form some predictions of the early young universe, as to how energies and subatomic particles became the building-blocks of ordinary matters.

So far the Big Bang model provides the most evidences, more than other more theoretical cosmologies (e.g. Multiverse model, the Oscillating or Cyclical model). The Big Bang theory is still ongoing project. There are things things that we determine and conclude from observation or from empirical evidences, and there are others scientists don't know.

 

[gnostic]

One of the things that I didn't address in my above reply in regarding to the supernatural causes.

The problems with supernatural causes are, they completely defied the nature.

Take for instance, in Genesis 1, where God said "Let there be light", and then there was light, as if by "magic".

I think Christian belief in such thing that words can create "light" is the hypocrisy of their belief. I know that Christians didn't write the Genesis, but they would believe this literally is what struck me with awe.

The hypocrisy here, is Exodus have a law against witchcraft and sorcery that -

18 You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.

And yet the creation of light using words, simply sounds too much like witchcraft, incantation of spell.

But I don't believe in magic, witchcraft or sorcery; they do make for interesting in fiction, myths and in religious texts, but they have no basis in reality, including God creating light with word.

In Egyptian religions, there are whole of lot of hieroglyphs on tombs walls or on the coffin themselves, containing spells and prayers to assist with the dead to move in the next life (afterlife). Invoking god's name or number of gods' names in prayers or spells were said to be very powerful magic, powerful enough to heal the sick or even resurrecting a person (such as the story of Isis and Horus, where Thoth revived the infant Horus who was stung to death by a scorpion).

Now any Christians would say the Egyptian religion is nothing more than myths. But according to the gospels, the disciples in the NT could heal the sicks, just by invoking Jesus' name.

Are there really that much difference between Egyptian gods healing people and Jesus or his disciples healing the sicks, with either touch or with words?

But whether it is with Christianity or with any pagan religion, the use of magic or something occurring supernaturally, defied the law of nature.

This is why supernatural causes are often discounted by people looking into how nature work.

 

[Ted Evans]

I think the real problem is that you are failing to understand and that you have some hang-up with because it doesn't fall into line of your belief in creationism.

I disagree, I have a "hang-up" with people presenting something as fact when they cannot answer simple questions when asked. My belief in creationism has nothing to do with, "where did space, matter, energy and time come from in the beginning". Either that question can be answered or it cannot and I have received different views from the BB theorist that have responded, "created with the BB, they were always there, they are not needed for the BB, no one knows", paraphrased, and only the last one makes sense. Many people want to tell me what to believe but they do not even agree with one another at times and no one seems to have an answer to questions that I have asked which they can prove with empirical evidence. The only thing they seem to all agree on is, God had nothing to do with it but they cannot prove what happened, "in the beginning". Yes, I believe that a supernatural, intelligent being created and programmed the universe and all natural laws but I admit that it is my belief, I do not try to pass it off as empirical science.

IMO, science is something that can be observed, tested, duplicated and no one can do any of that "in the beginning". Some folks are willingly indoctrinated, some are not so willing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many people want to tell me what to believe but they do not even agree with one another at times and no one seems to have an answer to questions that I have asked which they can prove with empirical evidence.

Sounds like religion.

The only thing they seem to all agree on is, God had nothing to do with it but they cannot prove what happened, "in the beginning".

Change that to "God did it" and it sounds like religion again.

IMO, science is something that can be observed, tested, duplicated and no one can do any of that "in the beginning".

Science is a method for examining, understanding, predicting, and at times controlling various aspects of physical reality, and the body of ideas generated by that method. The method involves observing, but not the past. The beginning of time and space don't need to be observed, just the evidence that remains today that suggests answers. We always observe the present and make inferences about the past from them. Science is based on what is observable, not that which is unobservable.

 

[Jose Fly]

I disagree, I have a "hang-up" with people presenting something as fact when they cannot answer simple questions when asked.

I have to ask again......who? Who are these "people"?

IMO, science is something that can be observed, tested, duplicated

Again, that's incorrect. No one has observed or duplicated the earth making a complete orbit around the sun, yet we're pretty darned confident that it does.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

1) If there is space, energy and time but no matter, can anything be created?

Thought energy WAS matter, and vice versa? A gas is matter being really energized, a liquid not so much, and a solid less still.

2) If there is energy, time and matter but no space, where would anything created be placed?

Matter takes up space.

3) If there is time, matter and space but no energy, how could anything be created?

Matter and energy are related if not the same thing. What does any of this have to do with creation?

7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.

Why number a question that's not a question?

He explained it Himself. He said I AM. He is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega. I doubt our minds are capable of understanding His existence completely.

But I also think God can do better than bumper sticker descriptions.

Sure, there are plenty of dense people on the planet, but surely someone has an IQ high enough somewhere to get a decent shot at it.

The question doesn't make sense. Matter is energy

Thanks. I was beginning to fear I was getting old and forgetting what was noted in elementary school.

No, I highly recommend AIG

The Ken Ham sham? The people who have encouraged such ignorance of even basic knowledge that even THEY have to turn down flat-earthers as being silly?

But what if God created the universe 10,000 years ago with everything in place including the light and scientists just think it all started millions of years ago?

I thought God was Truth, not God is Illusion. I thought you were a Christian, not Buddhist.

It begins in childhood, with a fascination in things scientific. Kids peruse age appropriate encyclopedias for scientific input. They want chemistry sets and Radio Shack kits. They pay attention in science classes, and then often go to university and major in one of them. They subscribe to Scientific American and Sky & Telescope. They buy popular treatments of scientific subjects in bookstores like Barnes & Noble from authors like Dawkins, Gribben and Davies.

Yeah. I tried to read my maternal grandfather's Grey's Anatomy text well before I could understand 99% of the words. The pictures were neat, though. I would correct the posters I had in my room, too, if I felt they were not complete or something.

I assume you have heard of nuclear weapons? They are based on this equation.

And if two little infants press their buttons, we'll all have an immediate knowledge of them...

 

[gnostic]

The only thing they seem to all agree on is, God had nothing to do with it but they cannot prove what happened, "in the beginning".

I don't know what you do for a living, so I don't know what education or qualification you took to learn them.

So I am going to give you some hypothetical examples, or what we call analogy.

Let's say you became plumber. Where would you learn this trade? From another plumber, qualified and experienced? Or did you learn the plumbing trade from god?

There are no mention of God telling you how fix leak or replace pipe.

My points are that you don't learn anything from God for becoming plumber, electrician, construction worker, or any other apprentice-trades. And if they have manuals, where they mentioned "God" as parts of their training.

Similarly, there are no mention of "God" in accounting textbooks, where God teach people how to balance the books, or auditing people's or company's gross profits, credits and debits and spendings for tax purposes.

If none of these trades or non-scientific professions required acquiring knowledge from god to their work, then why should any scientific branches or fields would require to inform people learning science about god.

God is irrelevant because God cannot teach anyone science that are required to do their jobs.

Science is a tool to acquire knowledge of WHAT nature is, HOW nature work or function and HOW to make use of this knowledge (hence application)?

In order for you God into anything relating to science, then God himself needs to be falsifiable and testable.

1. Can you test God's existence?
2. Can you observe or detect God?
3. Can you quantify or measure him?

If you answer no to each question, then why any scientist require to include god in their theories?

If you answer "no" to all of the above questions, then god is not detectable, not measurable, and therefore not falsifiable and not testable - ergo god isn't scientific.

Adding God to any BB model (there are actually two versions of the Big Bang, inflationary and non-inflationary models) or any other physical cosmologies, will not make anyone understand how the universe formed into what it is today.

How did the star formed?

If you say God did it, how does that make understand what a star is? Does the bible or any other religious scriptures show what the stars are and how they work?

In Genesis 1, on the 4th day of creation, god supposedly created the sun, moon and stars, so it is making assumptions the sun is different from stars.

Astronomy showed that the sun is a star. Astrophysics show why and how light and heated are created from the Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Stellar Nucleosynthesis is how the star create heavier element (like helium) from lighter element (like hydrogen), through nuclear fusion. It takes about at least 6 hydrogen atoms to create a single helium atom.

When a star run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium, if the star has enough mass, and higher temperature than before, it would begin to fuse helium atoms into heavier elements, like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen or any other elements in between these elements and iron element.

That's how star create heavier elements to make new planets when the star died.

The bible cannot teach anyone anything about the stars, and what the bible do have to say about the stars, are just superstitions, not science.

So unless the bible become knowledge for science, it cannot teach us anything except believing biblical stories, which have nothing to do with science.

So why would expect science to include God in the Big Bang theory?

Can god teach us about what atom is?
Or what quark or lepton?
Can god teach anyone about mass, energy or field?
Can god teach us gravity?​

Saying "God did it" to any of the above question, is really not an answer, but lazy cop-out and pure ignorance.

Science may not know everything to know about nature, but it is far better than Genesis 1 to 11, or anything God said in Job 38 to 41.