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

[sparky]

thread tune.....

 

[Windparadox]

`
Humans are finite creatures with finite intelligence who can only think in three dimensions. There are things that we will never be able to grasp or understand.

 

[sparky]

....i can chew gum & walk.....

 

[Picaro]

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.

Sooner or later matter runs out of energy, and those 'red shift' thingies slow down and eventually reverse coruse, to where ever the center of gravitational mass has itself moved to; the universe isn't going to expand forever, and if you're going to use einstein's theories, then that means space is curved and it's all moving in a circle, or at best a spiral, another limit to its size.

 

[ding]

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.

Sooner or later matter runs out of energy, and those 'red shift' thingies slow down and eventually reverse coruse, to where ever the center of gravitational mass has itself moved to; the universe isn't going to expand forever, and if you're going to use einstein's theories, then that means space is curved and it's all moving in a circle, or at best a spiral, another limit to its size.

I believe the general consensus is that it will keep expanding and eventually reach thermal equilibrium. But that would be trillions of years away.

 

[ding]

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"...

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

Rules are effectively instructions. Take your DNA as an example. Your DNA provides the instructions for how you will develop. If we use your argument if you didn’t exist there would be no DNA to control your development, we would still know that DNA exists even if you didn’t.

There are rules which govern every single cause and effect which occurs in the universe. Why would the creation of the universe be any different?

 

[ding]

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.

Why do you deny science?

 

[Vastator]

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"...

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

 

[ding]

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"...

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

DNA was developed long before you came into this world. So your absence does not change the fact that instructions or rules govern the development of living things. The same applies to the creation and development of the universe. Instructions or rules had to exist before space and time could be created. Otherwise you might as well argue it was a creative act of God.

 

[ding]

In fact before living things could exist DNA had to come first to provide the instructions for life.

 

[ding]

Just as the laws of nature had to exist to provide the instructions for nature to exist.

 

[Vastator]

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"...

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

DNA was developed long before you came into this world. So your absence does not change the fact that instructions or rules govern the development of living things. The same applies to the creation and development of the universe. Instructions or rules had to exist before space and time could be created. Otherwise you might as well argue it was a creative act of God.

Nonsense. DNA is a thing of matter, space, and time. A recent one as has been observed to this point. As such it in no way speaks to the existence of cause, and effect; prior to matter, space, and time.

 

[Vastator]

In fact before living things could exist DNA had to come first to provide the instructions for life.

That isn’t proven. The two can be observed to exist at the same time. But we only have one example of life. It has wide variety; but genetics shows that it’s all traceable to a singular common anscestor. One example isn’t enough to make an ironclad conclusion from.
On the flip side... dead animals also contain DNA. Using that information one can conclude that DNA isn’t the only prerequisite for life...
But we’re getting far afield, here. We’re still working on proving the existence of cause, and effect, or “rules”; in the absence of space, time, and matter, as that was the supposition. So... how does one demonstrate that to be true?

 

[ding]

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"...

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

DNA was developed long before you came into this world. So your absence does not change the fact that instructions or rules govern the development of living things. The same applies to the creation and development of the universe. Instructions or rules had to exist before space and time could be created. Otherwise you might as well argue it was a creative act of God.

Nonsense. DNA is a thing of matter, space, and time. A recent one as has observed to this point. As such it in no way speaks to the existence of cause, and effect; prior to matter, space, and time.

It’s an analogy.

You live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which did not follow the laws of nature. Why would you expect the creation of the universe to be any different?

 

[Flash]

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.

Spouting that silly little magic myth once again, I see.

The greatest magic trick of all time; the universe creating itself out of nothing.

 

[ding]

In fact before living things could exist DNA had to come first to provide the instructions for life.

That isn’t proven. The two can be observed to exist at the same time. But we only have one example of life. It has wide variety; but genetics shows that it’s all traceable to a singular common anscestor. One example isn’t enough to make an ironclad conclusion from.
On the flip side... dead animals also contain DNA. Using that information one can conclude that DNA isn’t the only prerequisite for life...
But we’re getting far afield, here. We’re still working on proving the existence of cause, and effect, or “rules”; in the absence of space, time, and matter, as that was the supposition. So... how does one demonstrate that to be true?

Before matter can assemble itself it needs instructions and information. That’s RNA and DNA.

The universe is no different.

 

[Vastator]

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"...

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

DNA was developed long before you came into this world. So your absence does not change the fact that instructions or rules govern the development of living things. The same applies to the creation and development of the universe. Instructions or rules had to exist before space and time could be created. Otherwise you might as well argue it was a creative act of God.

Nonsense. DNA is a thing of matter, space, and time. A recent one as has observed to this point. As such it in no way speaks to the existence of cause, and effect; prior to matter, space, and time.

It’s an analogy.

You live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which did not follow the laws of nature. Why would you expect the creation of the universe to be any different?

One doesn’t have to expect, or “assume”; we can observe. We can even come up with theories based on what we have observed, and then test them. As it pertains to the topic... there has been no observation that can test that cause, and effect predated the existence of space time, and matter. If there is, I’d like to see it. If not then the best we can demonstrate or observe is that they coexist.

 

[Vastator]

In fact before living things could exist DNA had to come first to provide the instructions for life.

That isn’t proven. The two can be observed to exist at the same time. But we only have one example of life. It has wide variety; but genetics shows that it’s all traceable to a singular common anscestor. One example isn’t enough to make an ironclad conclusion from.
On the flip side... dead animals also contain DNA. Using that information one can conclude that DNA isn’t the only prerequisite for life...
But we’re getting far afield, here. We’re still working on proving the existence of cause, and effect, or “rules”; in the absence of space, time, and matter, as that was the supposition. So... how does one demonstrate that to be true?

The universe is no different.

Who told you that?

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. Cause and effect are what we use to confirm the rules or order within nature.

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

DNA was developed long before you came into this world. So your absence does not change the fact that instructions or rules govern the development of living things. The same applies to the creation and development of the universe. Instructions or rules had to exist before space and time could be created. Otherwise you might as well argue it was a creative act of God.

Nonsense. DNA is a thing of matter, space, and time. A recent one as has observed to this point. As such it in no way speaks to the existence of cause, and effect; prior to matter, space, and time.

It’s an analogy.

You live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which did not follow the laws of nature. Why would you expect the creation of the universe to be any different?

One doesn’t have to expect, or “assume”; we can observe. We can even come up with theories based on what we have observed, and then test them. As it pertains to the topic... there has been no observation that can test that cause, and effect predated the existence of space time, and matter. If there is, I’d like to see it. If not then the best we can demonstrate or observe is that they coexist.

So leading scientists like Lederman and Vilenkin telling you the laws were in place before the creation of the universe isn’t enough?

 

[Vastator]

So I’m the absence of space, time and matter by which to observe the cause, and effect... Or “rules as you prefer; there is no way to confirm that said “rules exist in the absence of matter, space, and time, as one cannot observe. There fore it a logical impossibility to conclude that the “rules” existed prior to matter, space, and time. Which makes the possibility of simultaneous existence of all of the aforementioned happening at the same time. As we can currently observe there mutual coexistence in the present. So we know it’s possible. Additionally that opens the possibility that non existence of one, could also suggest the non existence of the other...

DNA was developed long before you came into this world. So your absence does not change the fact that instructions or rules govern the development of living things. The same applies to the creation and development of the universe. Instructions or rules had to exist before space and time could be created. Otherwise you might as well argue it was a creative act of God.

Nonsense. DNA is a thing of matter, space, and time. A recent one as has observed to this point. As such it in no way speaks to the existence of cause, and effect; prior to matter, space, and time.

It’s an analogy.

You live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which did not follow the laws of nature. Why would you expect the creation of the universe to be any different?

One doesn’t have to expect, or “assume”; we can observe. We can even come up with theories based on what we have observed, and then test them. As it pertains to the topic... there has been no observation that can test that cause, and effect predated the existence of space time, and matter. If there is, I’d like to see it. If not then the best we can demonstrate or observe is that they coexist.

So leading scientists like Lederman and Vilenkin telling you the laws were in place before the creation of the universe isn’t enough?

No. It isn’t enough. An “appeal to authority” isn’t an argument.