In the beginning...

[Brickjectivity]

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?

What is known is that time, matter, space and energy are all related. This is demonstrable through experiments that verify general and special relativity. It presumes that mathematical induction is reasonable. The evidence indicates there cannot be time, matter and space without energy, nor space energy and time with no matter. What specifically everything is made of is unclear, but it appears not to be made of anything.

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

From Hubble it appears space (time, matter, energy and physical matter) is spreading out in all directions, stretching and getting thinner. This could mean that everything comes from a central location. The direction is not clear from this, however there is a horizon that cannot be seen past.

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

It appears to be finite to me but it could be infinite. Some people claim to have worked out an age based on measurements. There's a light horizon however, because light takes time to reach us, and there is a border where light sources are too far away. You can see pretty far but not infinitely far.

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

Empirical evidences are the measurements of the stars, distances, red shift. To really get an answer you will need to learn some things, particularly if you do not trust Astronomers.

 

[Sunstone]

...I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.

"Not theories"? What's a "theory" to you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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? Then the scientists would all be wrong, wouldn't they?

But so would you.

You're describing a deceiver god, one who created a universe 10,000 years ago to appear to be over 13 billion years old, even going so far as to seed our planet's crust with strata of progressively more complex biological forms, adjusting the ratios of radionuclides in them to make it appear that they are much older than they are, and creating the existing life forms with nested anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic hierarchies.

That would be a god that was trying to appear nonexistent, or like the deist god, not the god of the Christian Bible, who is said to want to be known, believed, obeyed, and worshiped.

 

[Sunstone]

There are reasons why it's hard discussing science with creationists.

 

[DavidFirth]

But so would you.

You're describing a deceiver god, one who created a universe 10,000 years ago to appear to be over 13 billion years old, even going so far as to seed our planet's crust with strata of progressively more complex biological forms, adjusting the ratios of radionuclides in them to make it appear that they are much older than they are, and creating the existing life forms with nested anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic hierarchies.

That would be a god that was trying to appear nonexistent, or like the deist god, not the god of the Christian Bible, who is said to want to be known, believed, obeyed, and worshiped.

He didn't deceive anyone. He has told us all about it. If people decide to ignore Him and go off on their own, they have deceived themselves.

 

[DavidFirth]

"Not theories"? What's a "theory" to you?

Stop the semantics game and give some empirical scientific evidence. You're deliberately pulling a bait and switch.

 

[leibowde84]

Thanks for the suggestion, I would suggest that you read Answers in Genesis and Institue for Creation Research, is that fair?

I have. Their evidence was not convincing. It didn't provide explanations for the mounds upon mounds of contradicting evidence beyond just saying certain scientists were incompetent and their methods severely flawed, which just isn't true.

 

[Sunstone]

Stop the semantics game and give some empirical scientific evidence. You're deliberately pulling a bait and switch.

What do you yourself mean by the word "theory"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Stop the semantics game and give some empirical scientific evidence. You're deliberately pulling a bait and switch.

Nope. It just happens that the stance is absurd, uninformed.

It does not come any better than "just" a theory.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I still do not know where space, time, energy and matter came from in the beginning as seen by those that believe in cosmology evolution (CE). IOW, it is a belief by CEs that those components were there, no different than creationist "believe" that God was there and He created those components.

Justified belief and unjustified belief are not "no different." They are radically different. More on that to follow.

What upsets me are those that scoff at creationists views of creation but try to pass of CE views as being "scientific".

We reject creationism because it is unjustified belief. Like all creation stories including those of the ancient Babylonians and the Vikings, there is nothing scientific about it.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory. Believing that the universe has been expanding for over 13 billion years in the manner specified by the theory, including the splitting of the four fundamental forces, the evolution of matter through the various epochs in the first several minutes after T=0, cosmic expansion, the condensation of plasma into neutral matter with the attendant release of the background radiation, and the formation of stars and galaxies is justified belief. It is justified because the theory made precise and unexpected predictions about what would be found in the universe if it were correct, predictions that have been confirmed. Isn't prophecy used by those promoting their holy books to establish its authenticity? Science does that much better.

Faith based thinking (unjustified belief) and reason and evidence based thinking (justified) are radically different epistemologies that produce radically different output. The latter is anchored to observation of physical reality, which is why there is one scientific cosmology. Faith based thought is just imagination, which is why there are hundreds of mythological cosmologies.

And the proof is in the pudding. Empirical methods underlain by rational skepticism have transformed our lives, making them longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more informed. That is how we know that the methods of science are valid and useful.

What useful insights into the working of nature have the methods of faith based thought given us? None. That is how we know which method to use to learn about reality. That is why not all beliefs are equal as you implied.

Was that an example of what you meant by scoffing at creationism?

 

[Altfish]

No, it is called the great almighty power of the I AM, something you are not very familiar with.

There had to be a first something. God is that something.

That's what I said, Special Pleading, you can't argue with that.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There had to be a first something. God is that something.

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

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

Within a naturalistic framework, the energy and space-time interacts in accordance to the laws of physics and thus new states of energy (including mass) emerge over time. That does not jibe well with the idea that "anything" can be "created".



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

Nobody knows. They may have existed in some form eternally.

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

The age is currently calculated from a specific period in the past beyond which the universe was so dense that our currently understood low density approximations to the laws of physics do not work. Same problem as for black holes. Until further advancements in quantum gravity is made, this situation is not going to change.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There had to be a first something. God is that something.

How were you able to eliminate the multiverse as the source of our universe? It's not only a possibility, it's a much more parsimonious hypothesis. It needn't be intelligent or even conscious, nor does it need to be complex.

 

[Polymath257]

Can this be demonstrated, has it been done in a lab, can you provide some examples? Or, is it a mathematical formula that suggests it can be done?

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

But it has been demonstrated every time a nuclear reaction happens (nuclear decay, for example, any reaction in a particle accelerator lab, as another).

So, yes, this has been extensively demonstrated in labs and on a daily basis.

 

[Polymath257]

IOW, if there

Are you saying that if there is matter, energy and time, there has to be space also or have I misunderstood? My contention is that all four of these components are required, in the beginning, before there can be a universe. Is that an incorrect assumption?

One issue is that in modern cosmology, space and time together form the geometry of spacetime as a four dimensional manifold. So, when a cosmologist uses the term 'universe', it is typical to mean spacetime. Furthermore, matter and energy are aspects of this universe and seem to be co-extensive with it.

In other words, our universe throughout space and time is a single entity and matter and energy exist throughout this entity (space and time).

Now, because time is part of this spacetime construct, there is no 'before the universe' just like there cannot be 'before time'.

A good analogy is latitude on the Earth (as an analog for time). There is no 'south of the south pole' just like there is no 'before the universe'.

Now, many views have a larger structure, called the multiverse, in which time is infinite into the past. This is speculative, but in the analogy would be similar to seeing the Earth as in a larger space. But even in this case, there cannot be a 'before time' and space, time, matter, and energy all exist throughout the structure.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it is called the great almighty power of the I AM, something you are not very familiar with.

There had to be a first something. God is that something.

Wrong on both accounts.

 

[DavidFirth]

Wrong on both accounts.

Thank you, oh mighty high one.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the suggestion, I would suggest that you read Answers in Genesis and Institue for Creation Research, is that fair?

Done that. They are dishonest in so many ways that it is hard to know where to start. First, they grotesquely misunderstand the science they criticize. They misquote people on a regular basis (making them appear to say things they actually disagree with) and are generally liars.

If these are your sources, you should learn a bit of *actual* science and then come back to them and see where they misrepresent everything they say.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you, oh mighty high one.

Not mighty at all. But your claims are very, very far from being proven.

Given the nature of time, there does NOT have to be a 'first'. And that destroys your whole viewpoint.