In the beginning...

[Polymath257]

Yes, by golly, I have heard a rumor about nuclear weapons, I was in the Air Force.

So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion? Since the OP refers to in the beginning and as far as I know, there were no nuclear weapons at that time so how did energy create matter, in the beginning? What was the source of that energy, what was the trigger?

Other way around, actually. Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons. That is why they have such a large yield.

But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also. For example, if you collide two electrons together at high energy (kinetic energy), they will often produce extra matter by conversion of the kinetic energy into mass. What is produced depends on the energy level of the collision, but it is quite possible to produce protons and anti-protons (which are each 1800 times as massive as an electron).

Once again, we do not know the specifics about 'in the beginning' (even whether such a phrase makes sense isn't clear). But we know from lab results that a 'pure vacuum' with no matter in it has a higher energy than having space with matter in it. The decay from one to the other is *thought* to be one aspect of matter creation early on.

Now, if you have a universe like those predicted by loop quantum gravity (again, speculative), then there is a prior, contracting universe before ours and a 'bounce' that goes into ours. So, in that case, the energy and matter are at high compression at the 'bounce', but exist through it.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, I am exhausted by all of the deflections and diversions by those that have no answers as they were asked in the OP.

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

BTW, what I think is ridiculous is some one that believes in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded although they do not know how or what caused it, and over billllllions of years nothing created the universe, that is what I find ludicrous.

And if that was the viewpoint, you would be correct. But it isn't/

There was no 'time' where there was 'nothing'. Any 'time' where there was 'time', there was also 'matter', 'space' and 'energy'.

 

[Ted Evans]

Your questions have been answered multiple times by multiple people.

Gee, how many times have I heard that assertion or, “I answered your questions you just did not like the answers”, did not matter that the “answers” could not be quoted.

But OK then, I will accept the only one that is defendable, “no one knows”. Therefore all the other answers are nothing but opinions, correct?

 

[Polymath257]

Gee, how many times have I heard that assertion or, “I answered your questions you just did not like the answers”, did not matter that the “answers” could not be quoted.

But OK then, I will accept the only one that is defendable, “no one knows”. Therefore all the other answers are nothing but opinions, correct?

But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Any opinion that the universe to be 10,000 years old can be dismissed as invalid.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for the comments and that makes the point of my OP, science cannot answer the question where those four components came from, “in the beginning”. It is a belief just like Creationists has the belief that God created them in the beginning. If, they could have always existed in some form, then does that not cause a problem for CE when they scoff at a Creationist saying that God always existed?

There is a lot of difference between does not and cannot. Science does not gain knowledge from revelations but trying to look deeper, further and in greater precision into nature and working hard to piece together what it sees. To answer the question you asked requires science to develop new technologies that can probe even higher energies and detect faint traces of things like gravitational perturbations emanating from the time of the Big Bang or even before. Such technologies are already being developed, and there is no reason to suppose the questions you asked cannot be answered through research.

It's kind of silly to insert one's favorite God into each and every scientific question that is yet to be answered. We don't know what happens inside a black hole either, maybe God hides in black holes.

I don't know who are you referring to by saying cosmologists evolutionist. Atheists? I am not one. I can tell you what the situation in cosmology is. They are interested in very specific questions regarding the properties of early universe and the one thing I have never seen is the claim that a God made the universe aid a cosmologist in making any advancement in our knowledge of the universe.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

What is a cosmology evolutionist?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Can any cosmology evolutionist answer these questions for me?

I have no idea what a 'cosmology evolutionist' is. (though I have an M.S. in evolution.) but....

In the beginning...

Who says there was a beginning?

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

Who says anything was created?

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

Who says anything was created?

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

Who says anything was created?

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

Who says anything was created?

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

Good question. How do you propose to answer it?

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

We certainly have estimates of the time since the singularity.

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

You obviously have no idea what the word 'theory' means!

 

[Sunstone]

@Sunstone .....why do you think this is one fundamental area where creationists seem to be universally ignorant?

@Jose Fly That's quite an interesting question, isn't it? I think K.C. Cole gave an at least partial answer to it some years ago when she pointed out some studies that showed people tend to deal with uncertainty in very different ways. Some people seem to have an emotional need to think of the world in absolute terms. "All or nothing". "Either A or not A". While other people are emotionally comfortable thinking of the world in more probabilistic terms. "X is likely to happen." "There's a 60% chance of Y occurring."

According to Cole, scientists largely belong in the latter camp. They tend to think in probabilistic terms, rather than in absolutes. In contrast, religious people -- especially the more fundamentalist ones -- tend to think in absolute terms, rather than in probabilities.

The upshot of it is that a scientist might be quite comfortable working with a scientific theory that he or she thinks of as "merely" very reliable while a religious fundamentalist, or someone similar, would be thinking, "Goodness! How can you accept something that isn't absolutely certain to be true!"

I think you can see, Jose, how that would fit into the discussion we're having in this thread. For some of us, a very well supported theory that can be used to make accurate predictions about the world is about as good as it gets, and we're comfortable with that. But for others of us, any theory -- no matter how solid -- is "still just a theory" and does not satisfy our emotional need for absolute certainty.

To expand on that just a wee bit (and taking the lead from a post of yours in this thread): I would suggest that people who seek certainty might tend to think of the sciences as bodies of knowledge, while people who are comfortable with probabilities might be more inclined to see the sciences as methods of inquiry.

At least, that's my best guess in answer to your question.

 

[Kapalika]

You know, whenever I see a thread like this only a day old, and it's got 9 pages I just give up on reading or even replying. No way am I gonna read 9 pages. And my post gets buried anyway.

That said... I do wanna point out a couple things for the heck of it.

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.

1: matter and energy are convertible so no. It would just change energy to matter. That's conversion.

2: Things would be existing. I'm not sure how any of that can exist without space though. If there is time there is space. Physically they *cant* be separated.

3. If there is matter there is energy. It's not possible to have one without the other. ASnd even if it was the matter would almost instantly give off some form of energy through the weak nuclear force or radiation or whatever.

4. Again space and time are linked. if theres space theres time although time might appear to not be there if nothing moves and everything is at absolute zero.

5. No one knows. We can't see before or the exact split moment of the big bang so all the hypotheses about how are based on different mathematical models.

6: Age can be determined, for example the current model that gives the age was proven when it correctly predicted the distribution of elements in the known universe before it was even possible to figure that out.

6b: I've never seen a convincing reason why the Universe is infinite. The observable universe is surely finite though. There is no actual proof that it's infinite but some mathematical models say it is close enough with "bubbles" of which our universe is one of countless ones. But again thats never had any evidence for it beyond mathematical models consistent with what we already know. So they could be right or wrong. Nobody really knows.

7. Except where I noted no one really knows or they are based on mathematical models, it's been proven with physical evidence. There are some books on the subjects I could recommend if you see my post and care to know more.

Also when you read those types of sources note that they generally can mean something proven although sometimes they use the layman's definition. It just depends on how technical they are being.

Also some theories like "the theory of everything" which is the nickname because "Unified Field Theory of Quantum mechanics and General Relativity" sounds silly.... those are more of pursuits for a theory that would be that. In that sense they find the theory when they prove a hypothesis. Sometimes people will refer to something like M-Theory in which its used in the layman's sense.

So ya, context can be important. Theories are not usually guesses except in the layman's sense of the word.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think you have missed the point of my questions and the phrase, “in the beginning”. Much of creation cannot be explained and proven with empirical science; it is a belief, a hypothesis, a theory, not empirical science. Same for Creationists, we cannot prove with empirical science that God created the universe, we admit that, or at least I do.

The key difference is that you’re presenting a definitive answer to the question, that God created everything (and the capitalisation implies you have a specific definition for what kind of god you’re asserting). There is no equivalent to that singular definitive answer from the scientific study of the same field. There are lots of separate ideas, hypotheses and theories which are studied, altered or replaced as evidence come to light. Questions seeking answers rather than a pre-determined answer seeking proof.

The other key element is the question of consequence. Scientific study of the origins of the universe is really about intellectual curiosity. Whatever individual scientists might believe the answer is doesn’t actually effect how they go about their day-to-day lives or, significantly, how they believe others should. Creationism originates from religion and so doesn’t only talk about a god or gods creating the universe but also tends to present consequences of that which directly impact how we’re expected to live our lives. That element makes it a vastly different prospect.

 

[Thief]

I think it is more likely than not.....

Spirit first

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry, I am exhausted by all of the deflections and diversions by those that have no answers as they were asked in the OP.

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

So after all the effort people have put into trying to help you understand the very subject you're inquiring about, you remain as ignorant about it as ever. Given how many times we've seen this sort of willful ignorance from Christian creationists here at RF, I can't say I'm surprised. Seems to be kind of a defining characteristic of that group.

BTW, what I think is ridiculous is some one that believes in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded although they do not know how or what caused it, and over billllllions of years nothing created the universe, that is what I find ludicrous.

So? You've gone out of your way to remain as ignorant of the science as possible, so why would anyone care what you think about it?

 

[Jose Fly]

What part of, “So yes, for me it is a belief”? Is there some less complex way that I can phrase this so you will understand? Or, do you just think it is a “gottch”?

As I stated, I'm content to let the fact that you think the earth orbiting the sun is merely a belief speak for itself. If you're under the impression that you're doing yourself or your faith any favors here, more's the pity.

 

[Jose Fly]

Gee, how many times have I heard that assertion or, “I answered your questions you just did not like the answers”, did not matter that the “answers” could not be quoted.

But OK then, I will accept the only one that is defendable, “no one knows”. Therefore all the other answers are nothing but opinions, correct?

Again you exhibit simplistic black/white thinking, where something is either 100% proven or it is merely a belief, no different than something someone made up. That you cannot conceive of any other possibilities says a lot about you.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly That's quite an interesting question, isn't it? I think K.C. Cole gave an at least partial answer to it some years ago when she pointed out some studies that showed people tend to deal with uncertainty in very different ways. Some people seem to have an emotional need to think of the world in absolute terms. "All or nothing". "Either A or not A". While other people are emotionally comfortable thinking of the world in more probabilistic terms. "X is likely to happen." "There's a 60% chance of Y occurring."

According to Cole, scientists largely belong in the latter camp. They tend to think in probabilistic terms, rather than in absolutes. In contrast, religious people -- especially the more fundamentalist ones -- tend to think in absolute terms, rather than in probabilities.

The upshot of it is that a scientist might be quite comfortable working with a scientific theory that he or she thinks of as "merely" very reliable while a religious fundamentalist, or someone similar, would be thinking, "Goodness! How can you accept something that isn't absolutely certain to be true!"

So when it comes to the question at hand (Christian creationists thinking a scientific theory is something that can't be proven), they simply are not capable of grasping the concept of an explanation being very well supported by hundreds of years of data and testing but not necessarily being 100% absolutely true.

While I agree (because we see it so consistently from Christian creationists here), what I struggle with is not thinking of such people.........let's just say "in a very negative sense when it comes to their intellectual capabilities". You know what I mean?

I think you can see, Jose, how that would fit into the discussion we're having in this thread. For some of us, a very well supported theory that can be used to make accurate predictions about the world is about as good as it gets, and we're comfortable with that. But for others of us, any theory -- no matter how solid -- is "still just a theory" and does not satisfy our emotional need for absolute certainty.

To expand on that just a wee bit (and taking the lead from a post of yours in this thread): I would suggest that people who seek certainty might tend to think of the sciences as bodies of knowledge, while people who are comfortable with probabilities might be more inclined to see the sciences as methods of inquiry.

At least, that's my best guess in answer to your question.

I appreciate your post. You put it very well. What I wonder is.....can anything be done about it, or are these people just hard-wired to think in such simplistic terms?

 

[Ted Evans]

I don't know who are you referring to by saying cosmologists evolutionist.

Do you believe in "cosmology", do you believe it evolved? If so, then you are a "cosmology evolutionist". In the past, I have used "evolutionist" to distinguish between those who believe in evolution and those who do not It was claimed by more than one person that "evolution" only applied to biology. Of course, my belief was that it was a deflection but to minimize that possibility, I use "cosmology evolution" to denote my comments are about the evolution of the cosmology, not biology.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you believe in "cosmology", do you believe it evolved? If so, then you are a "cosmology evolutionist". In the past, I have used "evolutionist" to distinguish between those who believe in evolution and those who do not It was claimed by more than one person that "evolution" only applied to biology. Of course, my belief was that it was a deflection but to minimize that possibility, I use "cosmology evolution" to denote my comments are about the evolution of the cosmology, not biology.

What do you mean by the term 'evolve' in this context?

No, the universe did not change by mutation and natural selection. It is not a biological species that changes over time. Since that is the scientific meaning of the word 'evolve', the universe did not evolve.

Has the universe changed since it started? Yes. Primarily, it has cooled off, which has allowed galaxies and stars to form, etc. Now, we can go into the various stages of these changes and why cooling lead to such changes at those times, if you want.

 

[Ted Evans]

So after all the effort people have put into trying to help you understand the very subject you're inquiring about,

Just some more deflection or, you cannot comprehend what you read, or, if you even read the OP. Can you quote me asking anyone to help me understand? I do not think you can.

Since you are having so much difficulty, perhaps I can explain it in more simple terms.


[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.]

Number 1 – the very first line, “in the beginning”, IOW before the BB, before there was anything. See #7).

Number 2 – Questions 1) - 5), to see how honest the answers would be, it has nothing to do with my understanding. I have previously read most everything anyone, including you, has submitted in this thread. No, I am not, nor do I claim to be knowledgeable of physics or cosmology but I can understand simple answers to simple questions which were what I asked, if, you read them as they were asked, which obviously, you did not. See #7).

Number 3 – For 5), the only valid answer to the question were the one(s) that honestly answered, "not known." See #7 and the phrase preceding the questions, let me know if you need further instructions.

you remain as ignorant about it as ever. Given how many times we've seen this sort of willful ignorance from Christian creationists here at RF, I can't say I'm surprised. Seems to be kind of a defining characteristic of that group.


So? You've gone out of your way to remain as ignorant of the science as possible, so why would anyone care what you think about it?

Seems to be the characteristic of those that cannot provide a response as was requested in #7), they try diversion, deflection and when that does not work, then it is ridicule and personal attacks, anything to get the focus off the fact they cannot answer questions as they were asked and your comments in the thread has proven that assertion true.

 

[sayak83]

Do you believe in "cosmology", do you believe it evolved? If so, then you are a "cosmology evolutionist". In the past, I have used "evolutionist" to distinguish between those who believe in evolution and those who do not It was claimed by more than one person that "evolution" only applied to biology. Of course, my belief was that it was a deflection but to minimize that possibility, I use "cosmology evolution" to denote my comments are about the evolution of the cosmology, not biology.

OK. Yes. I am a cosmology evolutionist.
Current observations and formulations of physics cannot go beyond a certain point in the past of our universe for well known reasons (I can tell them if you want). So cosmologists start with the point in the past from which the universe can be observed and tackled using current theories and move to the present from there, charting the evolution of the universe and validating it from astronomical data . This part of cosmic evolution, from 13 billion years to today, is very well understood and accepted as established knowledge on science.

Meanwhile theoretical physicists are trying to develop more generalized laws that can describe even earlier periods of the universe and astronomers are also busy developing new types of telescopes and experiments to probe those early times and the conditions that existed then. That is the state of affairs as it stands now.

Hope that is clear?

 

[metis]

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

And where did God come from? And don't say he was always there because it is virtually impossible for you to know that.

Let me recommend you apply the same rules to yourself that you're demanding of others here, OK?