Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

[Montrovant]

Your lack of understanding doesn't make something miraculous.

But I have understanding. Space and time popped into existence out of nothing. It did so following the laws of nature which existed before space and time. Laws which predestined intelligence to arise.

All of matter and energy occupying the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom seems miraculous to me. Especially when you realize that the matter and energy that make up who you are today was present for the event.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your understanding of current human theory regarding the beginning of the universe says that those things in your post are true? It's entirely possible they are not true, as human understanding is inherently limited, based both on our intellectual capacity and our observational abilities. For that matter, I imagine there are still a number of different theories regarding the beginning of the universe, as well as variations and disagreements even within different theories.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

What evidence do you possess to say otherwise?

I'm speaking more of the lack of evidence.

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

 

[ding]

But I have understanding. Space and time popped into existence out of nothing. It did so following the laws of nature which existed before space and time. Laws which predestined intelligence to arise.

All of matter and energy occupying the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom seems miraculous to me. Especially when you realize that the matter and energy that make up who you are today was present for the event.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your understanding of current human theory regarding the beginning of the universe says that those things in your post are true? It's entirely possible they are not true, as human understanding is inherently limited, based both on our intellectual capacity and our observational abilities. For that matter, I imagine there are still a number of different theories regarding the beginning of the universe, as well as variations and disagreements even within different theories.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

What evidence do you possess to say otherwise?

I'm speaking more of the lack of evidence.

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

 

[Montrovant]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your understanding of current human theory regarding the beginning of the universe says that those things in your post are true? It's entirely possible they are not true, as human understanding is inherently limited, based both on our intellectual capacity and our observational abilities. For that matter, I imagine there are still a number of different theories regarding the beginning of the universe, as well as variations and disagreements even within different theories.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

What evidence do you possess to say otherwise?

I'm speaking more of the lack of evidence.

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

No, I'm going to try to remember that the data and evidence we have are limited, as is our observational ability, as is our understanding of the data and evidence. As such, I am not going to wed myself to any idea about the origin of the universe, something which humanity has constantly changed its common beliefs and understanding of, particularly when I do not have expertise in any branch of science or mathematics which might more fully inform my opinion.

In other words, while I'm not dismissing current theories on the creation of the universe by any means, I am not fully accepting any such theories, either.

You give the impression that you believe you know, without doubt, how the universe began.

 

[ding]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

What evidence do you possess to say otherwise?

I'm speaking more of the lack of evidence.

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

No, I'm going to try to remember that the data and evidence we have are limited, as is our observational ability, as is our understanding of the data and evidence. As such, I am not going to wed myself to any idea about the origin of the universe, something which humanity has constantly changed its common beliefs and understanding of, particularly when I do not have expertise in any branch of science or mathematics which might more fully inform my opinion.

In other words, while I'm not dismissing current theories on the creation of the universe by any means, I am not fully accepting any such theories, either.

You give the impression that you believe you know, without doubt, how the universe began.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation?

Or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

Or Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's GToR?

Or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that the universe had to have a beginning?

I guess what I am looking for here is some basis for your belief other than you don't like that all the evidence we have tells us the universe had a beginning. I get that you don't like it and it makes you uncomfortable but that's just the way it is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

Are you trying to explain something you don't understand?

I don't think so. I believe I have explained it very well. Did you read the ensuing discussion?

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

 

[ding]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

Are you trying to explain something you don't understand?

I don't think so. I believe I have explained it very well. Did you read the ensuing discussion?

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

I don't believe I got within 100 miles of trying to do that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

Are you trying to explain something you don't understand?

I don't think so. I believe I have explained it very well. Did you read the ensuing discussion?

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

I don't believe I got within 100 miles of trying to do that.

You don't believe huh? Believe being you don't know, you just made it up.

Well I KNOW you did that.

First you used the term "miracle", that particular word is a religious word.

 

[ding]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

Are you trying to explain something you don't understand?

I don't think so. I believe I have explained it very well. Did you read the ensuing discussion?

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

I don't believe I got within 100 miles of trying to do that.

You don't believe huh? Believe being you don't know, you just made it up.

Well I KNOW you did that.

First you used the term "miracle", that particular word is a religious word.

Yes, I did use the word miracle. I can't put anything past you. But I never made the connection back to a creator now did I? That would be a different discussion all together.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you trying to explain something you don't understand?

I don't think so. I believe I have explained it very well. Did you read the ensuing discussion?

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

I don't believe I got within 100 miles of trying to do that.

You don't believe huh? Believe being you don't know, you just made it up.

Well I KNOW you did that.

First you used the term "miracle", that particular word is a religious word.

Yes, I did use the word miracle. I can't put anything past you. But I never made the connection back to a creator now did I? That would be a different discussion all together.

Yes, you did. It's an automatic thing. If you didn't want to talk about God then you shouldn't have used religious words, now should you?

Then maybe it would have been a different discussion.

But seemingly you're trying to get out of the fact that you used such words in your title. Maybe you should try again with the words you ACTUALLY WANT TO USE.

 

[ding]

I don't think so. I believe I have explained it very well. Did you read the ensuing discussion?

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

I don't believe I got within 100 miles of trying to do that.

You don't believe huh? Believe being you don't know, you just made it up.

Well I KNOW you did that.

First you used the term "miracle", that particular word is a religious word.

Yes, I did use the word miracle. I can't put anything past you. But I never made the connection back to a creator now did I? That would be a different discussion all together.

Yes, you did. It's an automatic thing. If you didn't want to talk about God then you shouldn't have used religious words, now should you?

Then maybe it would have been a different discussion.

But seemingly you're trying to get out of the fact that you used such words in your title. Maybe you should try again with the words you ACTUALLY WANT TO USE.

They are two different discussions because there are two different proofs.

I used exactly the words I wanted to use for this discussion. I can't help it if it triggers you.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm speaking more of the lack of evidence.

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

No, I'm going to try to remember that the data and evidence we have are limited, as is our observational ability, as is our understanding of the data and evidence. As such, I am not going to wed myself to any idea about the origin of the universe, something which humanity has constantly changed its common beliefs and understanding of, particularly when I do not have expertise in any branch of science or mathematics which might more fully inform my opinion.

In other words, while I'm not dismissing current theories on the creation of the universe by any means, I am not fully accepting any such theories, either.

You give the impression that you believe you know, without doubt, how the universe began.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation?

Or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

Or Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's GToR?

Or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that the universe had to have a beginning?

I guess what I am looking for here is some basis for your belief other than you don't like that all the evidence we have tells us the universe had a beginning. I get that you don't like it and it makes you uncomfortable but that's just the way it is.

The limitations are in the observational data humanity is capable of accumulating, and in the understanding I specifically, and humanity in general, is capable of coming to. Humanity can *see* a very, very limited amount of the universe, in both space and time. Take dark energy/matter, for instance. It is believed to not only exist, but make up the vast majority of our universe, yet we cannot observe it. Or how about gravity? Despite the Higgs boson supposedly being observed, it is still far from fully understood. If humanity cannot yet understand or explain or observe these fundamental parts of the universe, despite them being current in time, why does my maintaining some skepticism about the origins of the universe strike you as being based on some sort of dislike or discomfort?

I see nothing at all wrong with discussion, research, and theories about the origin of the universe. I don't claim that no one has gotten it right regarding the universe's beginning. However, when someone puts forth an idea or explanation about the origin of the universe as if it is undisputed fact, it strikes me as arrogance.

 

[ding]

What evidence are you lacking?

In fact, what evidence do you possess that informs your belief?

In fact, what even is your belief?

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

No, I'm going to try to remember that the data and evidence we have are limited, as is our observational ability, as is our understanding of the data and evidence. As such, I am not going to wed myself to any idea about the origin of the universe, something which humanity has constantly changed its common beliefs and understanding of, particularly when I do not have expertise in any branch of science or mathematics which might more fully inform my opinion.

In other words, while I'm not dismissing current theories on the creation of the universe by any means, I am not fully accepting any such theories, either.

You give the impression that you believe you know, without doubt, how the universe began.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation?

Or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

Or Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's GToR?

Or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that the universe had to have a beginning?

I guess what I am looking for here is some basis for your belief other than you don't like that all the evidence we have tells us the universe had a beginning. I get that you don't like it and it makes you uncomfortable but that's just the way it is.

The limitations are in the observational data humanity is capable of accumulating, and in the understanding I specifically, and humanity in general, is capable of coming to. Humanity can *see* a very, very limited amount of the universe, in both space and time. Take dark energy/matter, for instance. It is believed to not only exist, but make up the vast majority of our universe, yet we cannot observe it. Or how about gravity? Despite the Higgs boson supposedly being observed, it is still far from fully understood. If humanity cannot yet understand or explain or observe these fundamental parts of the universe, despite them being current in time, why does my maintaining some skepticism about the origins of the universe strike you as being based on some sort of dislike or discomfort?

I see nothing at all wrong with discussion, research, and theories about the origin of the universe. I don't claim that no one has gotten it right regarding the universe's beginning. However, when someone puts forth an idea or explanation about the origin of the universe as if it is undisputed fact, it strikes me as arrogance.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation and why we should dismiss what this data tells us?

 

[Montrovant]

I think that humanity in general, and me in particular, do not know enough about the universe and its origins to hold any particularly strong belief about how it began. While some theories or ideas may be more compelling than others, I think that holding a particularly firm belief about the origin of the universe is a bit silly, especially considering how the prevailing theories about that origin have changed just in recent history.

My belief is that I don't know how (or if) the universe began. I also believe that any claims about what *must* have been true before the existence of the universe are little better than wild guesses.

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

No, I'm going to try to remember that the data and evidence we have are limited, as is our observational ability, as is our understanding of the data and evidence. As such, I am not going to wed myself to any idea about the origin of the universe, something which humanity has constantly changed its common beliefs and understanding of, particularly when I do not have expertise in any branch of science or mathematics which might more fully inform my opinion.

In other words, while I'm not dismissing current theories on the creation of the universe by any means, I am not fully accepting any such theories, either.

You give the impression that you believe you know, without doubt, how the universe began.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation?

Or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

Or Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's GToR?

Or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that the universe had to have a beginning?

I guess what I am looking for here is some basis for your belief other than you don't like that all the evidence we have tells us the universe had a beginning. I get that you don't like it and it makes you uncomfortable but that's just the way it is.

The limitations are in the observational data humanity is capable of accumulating, and in the understanding I specifically, and humanity in general, is capable of coming to. Humanity can *see* a very, very limited amount of the universe, in both space and time. Take dark energy/matter, for instance. It is believed to not only exist, but make up the vast majority of our universe, yet we cannot observe it. Or how about gravity? Despite the Higgs boson supposedly being observed, it is still far from fully understood. If humanity cannot yet understand or explain or observe these fundamental parts of the universe, despite them being current in time, why does my maintaining some skepticism about the origins of the universe strike you as being based on some sort of dislike or discomfort?

I see nothing at all wrong with discussion, research, and theories about the origin of the universe. I don't claim that no one has gotten it right regarding the universe's beginning. However, when someone puts forth an idea or explanation about the origin of the universe as if it is undisputed fact, it strikes me as arrogance.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation and why we should dismiss what this data tells us?

You're obviously not reading my posts, or choosing to ignore what I'm saying. I have not said anything should be dismissed; I have, in fact, said specifically that I am not dismissing things. If you want to keep asking questions about things I'm not claiming, continuing this is pointless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

This fails as a leading question fallacy.

Neither space nor time were ‘created.’

 

[ding]

So you are just going to ignore the data and evidence we do have?

No, I'm going to try to remember that the data and evidence we have are limited, as is our observational ability, as is our understanding of the data and evidence. As such, I am not going to wed myself to any idea about the origin of the universe, something which humanity has constantly changed its common beliefs and understanding of, particularly when I do not have expertise in any branch of science or mathematics which might more fully inform my opinion.

In other words, while I'm not dismissing current theories on the creation of the universe by any means, I am not fully accepting any such theories, either.

You give the impression that you believe you know, without doubt, how the universe began.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation?

Or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

Or Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's GToR?

Or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that the universe had to have a beginning?

I guess what I am looking for here is some basis for your belief other than you don't like that all the evidence we have tells us the universe had a beginning. I get that you don't like it and it makes you uncomfortable but that's just the way it is.

The limitations are in the observational data humanity is capable of accumulating, and in the understanding I specifically, and humanity in general, is capable of coming to. Humanity can *see* a very, very limited amount of the universe, in both space and time. Take dark energy/matter, for instance. It is believed to not only exist, but make up the vast majority of our universe, yet we cannot observe it. Or how about gravity? Despite the Higgs boson supposedly being observed, it is still far from fully understood. If humanity cannot yet understand or explain or observe these fundamental parts of the universe, despite them being current in time, why does my maintaining some skepticism about the origins of the universe strike you as being based on some sort of dislike or discomfort?

I see nothing at all wrong with discussion, research, and theories about the origin of the universe. I don't claim that no one has gotten it right regarding the universe's beginning. However, when someone puts forth an idea or explanation about the origin of the universe as if it is undisputed fact, it strikes me as arrogance.

Can you tell me what is limited about red shift and cosmic background radiation and why we should dismiss what this data tells us?

You're obviously not reading my posts, or choosing to ignore what I'm saying. I have not said anything should be dismissed; I have, in fact, said specifically that I am not dismissing things. If you want to keep asking questions about things I'm not claiming, continuing this is pointless.

You absolutely are dismissing the evidence that tells us that the universe had a beginning and for no good reason. Every single cosmological model honors red shift and cosmic background radiation. Without exception.

 

[ding]

Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

Approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing and occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool.

This fails as a leading question fallacy.

Neither space nor time were ‘created.’

Actually they were. It is not possible for our universe to be infinite acting. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Space and time did have a beginning and matter and energy were created out of nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You explained it very well assuming you're accepting that God exists already. Beyond that, you haven't really explained it at all.

I don't believe I got within 100 miles of trying to do that.

You don't believe huh? Believe being you don't know, you just made it up.

Well I KNOW you did that.

First you used the term "miracle", that particular word is a religious word.

Yes, I did use the word miracle. I can't put anything past you. But I never made the connection back to a creator now did I? That would be a different discussion all together.

Yes, you did. It's an automatic thing. If you didn't want to talk about God then you shouldn't have used religious words, now should you?

Then maybe it would have been a different discussion.

But seemingly you're trying to get out of the fact that you used such words in your title. Maybe you should try again with the words you ACTUALLY WANT TO USE.

They are two different discussions because there are two different proofs.

I used exactly the words I wanted to use for this discussion. I can't help it if it triggers you.

You wanted to know if the creation of time and space is a "miracle", right? I mean, this is what you asked.

The answer is NO, it's not a "miracle" at all. We're not even sure if this actually happened because we cannot possibly know what goes on outside of our universe to know whether A) anything was created at all, B) that time exists outside of the universe or not and C) that space exists outside the universe.

It's also not a miracle because God doesn't exist, so couldn't have made a "miracle" in the first place. Proving God doesn't exist is much easier.

 

[Vastator]

Where is his proof that you found so convincing?

That the creation of space and time followed the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That those laws existed before space and time.

That doesn’t disprove that both might have the same point of origin.

Sure it does. It would be illogical that a quantum tunneling event following the laws of conservation could do so without the quantum laws and law of conservation being already in place to govern the creation of time and space.

Who says? What is the limit of your understanding when shackled to contemporary knowledge, fervent belief in said knowledge, and human level intelligence? Logic can be quite a moot point when postulating such grand speculation.

I already told you that. Alexander Vilenkin.

Do you have any evidence or logic to the contrary? Is it your belief that space and time created itself willy nilly following no rules at all. We live in a logical universe where there has never been an uncaused event. For every effect there was a cause which followed rules. Are you suggesting the creation of space and time followed no rules? Because the only alternative to that is that the rules were in place. In fact, I don't know any cosmologist who doesn't believe the creation of space and time followed no rules.

Do you know who Leon Lederman is? Because he said, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

That isn't the only alternative. Another is that what you call "rules" ( which implies that there is a rule maker; for which there is no evidence...) are merely observations of cause, and effect. In short without matter, space, or time; there is neither cause, nor effect. Whereby no "rules"...

 

[sparky]

 

[Picaro]

I like one of our newer member's take on it.

"I guess he's one of those nonbelievers who think that nothing one day decided to create everything which exploded into dinosaurs." -Lucian Hodoboc

I'm not American, but...
post #41, I think.