In the beginning...

[Ted Evans]

Now, at this point we do not know if those assumptions are correct or not. Some of the speculations we have allow for time, matter, space, and energy to exist prior to the current expansion phase of the universe. Other speculations do not.

At this point we have no way to test between the different possibilities. If you find a way to test them, please let someone know.

Great, thanks for that, IOW, it is an assumption, a belief, a hypothesis, a theory but it is not proven science. I can accept that, we all have a right to our “beliefs”, just not when they try to be passed off as “science” and it seems that you agree with that.

 

[gnostic]

No, I'm trying to get the wise one to tell me about everything since I'm too stupid to know.

No, that sounds about right.

From past experiences, everyone here, already know that you don't understand science and that you cannot learn from your mistakes.

People in past threads, have explain things to you again and again, where you went wrong, but you refused to learn, so you repeat the same mistakes again and again.

Stubborn ignorance is not a good trait.

 

[Polymath257]

So you say, I will wait for you to answer my previous questions before I accept that assertion as fact. But allow me to see if I understand you correctly, in the beginning there is matter and time but no energy and space, still, the universe could have been created, is that what you are suggesting?

No.

I am suggesting that there is no beginning, no 'start'. Whenever there was time, there was also matter, energy, and space. I am saying that 'causality', i.e, 'coming from' is a part of the universe and not outside of it. So to ask where the universe 'comes from' is to misunderstand the nature of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

But maybe the Bible is a deception from God? if he rigged everything else, why not that also?

 

[Polymath257]

No, I'm trying to get the wise one to tell me about everything since I'm too stupid to know.

So this first life form, tell me more about it.

We don't know. At this point, we don't have direct evidence for the characteristics of that first life form. We know that the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and that life existed by 3.8 billion years ago. For a good part of that gap, the Earth would have been too hot for liquid water, so it appears that life started quite quickly. Past that, we have some evidence from the chemistry of currently living things, but that is about it.

 

[Ted Evans]

The current expansion phase is about 13.7 billion years old. What, if anything was before that is unknown. At this point, we don't even know if 'before' is meaningful here.

I agree, many “unknowns” but still not science, agree?

 

[Polymath257]

It assumes no such thing. Even you have admitted that at least two of the components are needed for creation, which I believe in itself is absurd so are you suggesting that those components were always in existence, they were just there?

ALL of space, time, matter, and energy existed when any of them did. Since it is absurd to talk about 'before time', the question of a 'start' to time is at best problematic.

What is there about, “in the beginning” that does not compute for you? I am using it in the common definition of “beginning”… “the point at which something begins : START”

Why do you assume there is a start?

I admit, I am beginning to understand why my question makes little sense to you.

Good. Continue thinking.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, many “unknowns” but still not science, agree?

The time between the start of this expansion phase and now is science. That the universe is expanding is science. To go before about a millisecond into the current expansion requires speculation related to energies beyond what we have been able to test. To go before the current expansion is based on speculations concerning quantum gravity and *nothing* at this level has been tested.

 

[Super Universe]

Space, energy, and time were all created in the exact same instant. Time is not a dimension. It is simply a sequence of events, this came before that.

Where did these things come from? No one other than God can explain that and He never has and probably never will.

The universe is not infinite. The source of the universe is.

Can the age of the universe be determined? The angels know the age of the universe. Humans don't.

You want answers that are supported by empirical scientific evidence? The rules you have stipulated here are not rules that God or the universe has to follow. You might want to do some research on quantum fluctuation/virtual particles-antiparticles.

 

[metis]

IOW, it is an assumption, a belief, a hypothesis, a theory but it is not proven science. I can accept that, we all have a right to our “beliefs”, just not when they try to be passed off as “science” and it seems that you agree with that.

Let me cut in here on this, and I hope that @gnostic doesn't mind.

A "hypothesis" is not a "belief", and in order for it to be a scientific hypothesis there needs to be some evidence to indicate that it could be true. When formulating a hypothesis, there's tons of work involved, including the citing evidence.

What comes out of a hypothesis is neither a "belief" nor a fact but more of an idea and maybe a direction that studies may need to take.

There are no "assumptions" allowed in science, and if I write a scientific paper on the basis of an assumption, I'm gonna get clobbered by other scientists, and that's only for starters.

A scientific theory is not an assumption or a hypothesis or a guess but is a conglomeration of theorems, hypotheses, and axioms all related to the same general topic, which puts our definition of "theory" somewhat at odds with how it is often used by those outside the scientific realm. See: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Finally, I find it rather bizarre that you question science and yet you cannot present a single piece of objectively-derived evidence to support "divine creation". Ain't ya being a tad hypocritical?

So, why don't you apply your own criticism to your own assumptions? For example, please provide us with one piece of objective evidence for divine creation that would qualify as a "scientific hypothesis"? a "scientific theory"?

 

[Ted Evans]

We can say how long the current expansion phase for our universe has been going on. Unfortunately, we have no evidence to distinguish between the various speculations past that point.

If you want to allow speculation based on the different proposals for quantum gravity, I will be happy to go through some of them

Thanks but I will pass on that offer, as I said, “I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.” …or speculations.

I am a Bible believing Christian that believes creation just as it is written by the only one that was there when it happened but, I also like and appreciate science and find it fascinating, at least the parts that can be proven. As I have said previously, it would not bother me in the least if those who believe in cosmology evolution would just say that was what they believe rather than trying to pass it off as if being a scientific fact. They will not do that because it would make them look kind of silly when they ridicule Creationists about our unproven beliefs. Show me something that can be observed, duplicated, tested and I will agree that it is science, wholeheartedly, otherwise, it is only a belief.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks but I will pass on that offer, as I said, “I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.” …or speculations.

And, like I said, anything prior to a few milliseconds into the current expansion phase has yet to be tested, so is speculation.

I am a Bible believing Christian that believes creation just as it is written by the only one that was there when it happened but, I also like and appreciate science and find it fascinating, at least the parts that can be proven. As I have said previously, it would not bother me in the least if those who believe in cosmology evolution would just say that was what they believe rather than trying to pass it off as if being a scientific fact. They will not do that because it would make them look kind of silly when they ridicule Creationists about our unproven beliefs. Show me something that can be observed, duplicated, tested and I will agree that it is science, wholeheartedly, otherwise, it is only a belief.

Sorry, but the speculations surrounding quantum gravity are *far* more certain than the stories of the Bible. When a creationist says that the universe is only 10,000 years old, they do deserve ridicule. It is certainly scientifically proven that this is wrong.

On the other hand, if you allow for a universe that is 13.7 billion years old in which living things evolved and humans are descended from other animals, then I have no issue. As long as your religion accepts the conclusions (more importantly, the methods) of science, I have no problem. Well, I might, depending on the ethical system you adopt, but that is a very different matter.

 

[Ted Evans]

Can something come from nothing? No.

I challenge you to show me a Cosmological point where "nothing" has ever been a state of existence. There has always been something, and we are part of that something.

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?

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?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

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?

Look, it is *possible* that there is a race of higher dimensional beings that have learned a technology for producing universes. It is *possible* that our universe came about because of the actions of being in such a society. And it is possible that our universe (all of space and time, mind you) was created and discarded as a poor work of art by that society.

Let me ask you this. If such a society actually exists and our universe was created by a high school student in that society, would you claim that high school student to be 'God'?

 

[metis]

The word for the moment: "infinity". Not a certainty, no doubt, but it has to be in the running according to many cosmologists.

 

[Ted Evans]

This scenario is impossible unless you have a Universe that's at total equilibrium - and that doesn't happen.

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.

 

[Ted Evans]

Again, no

I agree, all four components are needed for creation.

 

[Ted Evans]

For all we know, they are an innate property of the Universe. If not:

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

 

[Ted Evans]

Origins of matter can absolutely be traced back to their general starting point - but that only works for building blocks - not for Space Time itself... Our understanding of time is little more than a relative construct. There is no such thing as absolute time.

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?

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


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

 

[Ted Evans]

If you aren't interested in theoretical physics then you have no business asking these questions, do you?

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.