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

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Fucking hell, now I'm denying science. How the fuck am I denying science exactly? Is it because I said there's no God?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ding, I'm sorry for being an ahole to you last night. I was just reading through th thread again and realized I was out of character. I still disagree with the notion of the 2nd being one directional, given that the nature of the universe dictates otherwise, but that's beside the point. I must have been tired and cranky or something.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Perhaps you don't understand, but it is entirely possible to not accept a conclusion about something without dismissing it. Everything is not black and white: I do not have to completely endorse or completely reject any data or theories just because you think those are the only choices.

 

[Taz]

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.

It's just another component of nature.

 

[ding]

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.

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

 

[ding]

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.

It is when it makes sense.

 

[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.

Perhaps you don't understand, but it is entirely possible to not accept a conclusion about something without dismissing it. Everything is not black and white: I do not have to completely endorse or completely reject any data or theories just because you think those are the only choices.

But I do understand. My obligation is satisfied when I present the information. What others do or don’t do with it is on them.

At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. We should all choose wisely.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

 

[Vastator]

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.

It is when it makes sense.

No it isn’t. Appeal to authority is never an argument. It’s an escape hatch from a losing position in an argument. Any scientist or intellectual worth his salt will confirm that.

 

[ding]

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.

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

 

[ding]

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.

It is when it makes sense.

No it isn’t. Appeal to authority is never an argument. It’s an escape hatch from a losing position in an argument. Any scientist or intellectual worth his salt will confirm that.

Wrong.

I explained the basis for the belief that the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

Lederman and Vilenkin corroborate that basis and their testimony carries weight.

You on the other hand offer zero basis for your belief and no expert corroboration for that belief.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

 

[Vastator]

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.

It is when it makes sense.

No it isn’t. Appeal to authority is never an argument. It’s an escape hatch from a losing position in an argument. Any scientist or intellectual worth his salt will confirm that.

I explained the basis for the belief that the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

Don’t explain your belief... Show the board the data. We’ll choose for ourselves what to believe.

 

[ding]

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.

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

 

[ding]

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.

It is when it makes sense.

No it isn’t. Appeal to authority is never an argument. It’s an escape hatch from a losing position in an argument. Any scientist or intellectual worth his salt will confirm that.

I explained the basis for the belief that the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

Don’t explain your belief... Show the board the data. We’ll choose for ourselves what to believe.

My data is that there has never been an uncaused event and every caused event followed rules that were already in place.

Where’s your data?

 

[Vastator]

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

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

 

[Vastator]

My data is that there has never been an uncaused event and every caused event followed rules that were already in place.

I’m not the one making “the claim” you are. I don’t need data to point out that there is no data being offered to support your claim. If you need data to that effect, reread the thread, and take note of its absence. That’s the best I can offer for its non existence in so far as this conversation goes.
And your position, that rules were already in place, is entirely unsubstantiated. Neither you, nor your favorite authors have ever observed cause, and effect in the absence of matter, space, and time. Ever. Science demands observation for such a claim to be accepted as fact. And neither you, nor the authors you reference have done so. Or even claimed to have done so.
It’s okay to believe that it might be so. But it’s morally disingenuous to claim that it is so, when one knows they have no proof.

 

[ding]

Anyone who would scoff at accepting knowledge on the authority of others would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the overwhelming amount of knowledge we possess is obtained through the authority of others. The majority of things you know you know because you accepted it on the authority of others.

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

 

[ding]

My data is that there has never been an uncaused event and every caused event followed rules that were already in place.

I’m not the one making “the claim” you are. I don’t need data to point out that there is no data being offered to support your claim. If you need data to that effect, reread the thread, and take note of its absence. That’s the best I can offer for its non existence in so far as this conversation goes.
And your position, that rules were already in place, is entirely unsubstantiated. Neither you, nor your favorite authors have ever observed cause, and effect in the absence of matter, space, and time. Ever. Science demands observation for such a claim to be accepted as fact. And neither you, nor the authors you reference have done so. Or even claimed to have done so.
It’s okay to believe that it might be so. But it’s morally disingenuous to claim that it is so, when one knows they have no proof.

So does this apply to the theory of evolution as well?

 

[Vastator]

I accepted it because I observed, and verified. Though a heads up is always welcome. But when a person makes a claim, but cannot demonstrate it... Then insist that they should be believed for no other reason than social capital, or former achievement... That should give any intellectual pause.

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.