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

[Vastator]

Link?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Why does it have to have been created?

 

[Vastator]

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Not knowing how space and time were created does not prove how space and time were created.

The best explanation for how the universe began is ...

Intriguinig, and worthy of further study; but far from established fact. Facts matter. Observations matter. Being able to demonstrate one's obsvervations. Matter.
The supposition that cause, and effect (rules) predate the existence of matter space, and time.... Has never been observed. The only observation that has been made is of their coexistence. That said... There is more suggestive evidence to support a theory that cause, and effect (rules), are beholden to the nature of space, time, and matter; than there is for your theory. That doesn't make it true. It doesn't make your theory wrong either. But going from observable evidence... There is none for your position.

 

[Vastator]

One demonstration of this is the observation that at the theorized singularity, where the nature of space, time, and matter exist in a very different state... The current laws of physics "break down". While obviously they dont actually " break down", what does happen is that the flaws in our current models become apparent. That demonstrates that these cause and effect observations many call rules are not only incomplete... But flawed to a certain degree as well.
That observation lends more weight to the idea that the "rules" are conjoined with, if not beholden to, the nature of said space, time, and matter. It certainly hasn't been proven. But the variance can be observed. Unlike the existence of "the rules" absent matter, space, and time...

 

[Montrovant]

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

How else do you think it could have happened? Magic?

I was only commenting on Taz's post. However, I have no idea what might have existed before the Big Bang. Unlike you, I don't feel any sort of surety about my knowledge of such things. It's possible that what existed prior to the Big Bang is something beyond human comprehension; it's possible the laws of nature you keep speaking about did exist. I have no problem with accepting my ignorance. I haven't yet figured out why you are so certain that you have the answer.

Because logic requires it and because leading experts believe it.

You have given reasons why you believe as you do. I'm not trying to say there are none. However, you have not shown that the laws of nature existing prior to the Big Bang has been proven. It is your certainty, your description of these ideas as fact, that I have been arguing against.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ ding, et al,

Well, what is meant by "we don't know" is that we have no tangible, empirical or observational data that conclusively establishes the facts.

The best explanation for how space and time were created is inflation theory. So to say we don't know is incorrect because that implies we have no idea.

(COMMENT)

"Inflation theory" (forced fast-flowing expansion) is just that; a series of propositions that suggest a sequence of events.

But even the idea of "fast-flowing" (or rapid) expansion is supposition is unprovable. It makes the assumption of "time" (a uniform interval if successive events). Because there is the assumption that our understanding of the early universe is predicated on the laws of physics that we know today. But even that is questionable as is the compatibility of "Relativity" (the very very fast) and "Quantum Mechanics" (the very very small). We do not know if the first picosecond is actually a reliable event interval (what was the basis of an interval of time, before there was and interval of time). For all we know, a picosecond after the "Big Bang" could have taken a billion-billion years... We do not know what causes gravity. Our working theory is that is a force related to space-time and the mass (the greater the mass the more space-time is bent). But then, how do we explain either Dark Matter or Dark Energy; since neither is understood (the term "dark" really meaning "invisible").

In the theory of the "Big Bang" light was not generated immediately (so we think). The "Era of Recombination" is estimated to have occurred some 240k years after --- to --- 300k years after the "Big Bang" (based on our current perception of time). And, it cannot be assumed (although we don't know) that all wavelengths of energy developed at the same time. The wavelength of hydrogen [≈ 400nm to 600nm (four distinct types)] occurred much sooner than the wavelength of gold (fully reflective at ≈ 700nm).

Just my layman's perception.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

Embedding your question is a latent assumption.

Why does it have to have been created?

(COMMENT)

It is not an either ⇔ or set of conditions. That is, it is not the case that the physics of the universe does not preclude the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being. IF there is a Supreme Being, THEN it may very well have set the conditions for physics; thus the path that created Space-Time as we understand it.

There is no known set of conditions wherein the laws of physics could eight prove or disprove the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being. (It would not be science.)

Again, just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ThisIsMe]

Some things that baffle me.

They say the universe is continually expanding, that might explain why they say everything is moving away from each other. Perhaps instead of everything floating in space, maybe the fabric of the universe is actually pulling everything away from each other, due to the expansion.

Sort of like if you took a cloth, and sprinkled something on it, as you stretched the cloth, the sprinkles would pull apart.

Anyway, if the universe is always expanding, that would have to mean one of two things:

1) the fabric of the universe is getting thinner and thinner the more it expands

2) new matter is continually being created and being pushed out into the universe.

If the first was true, would that mean after enough time, the universe would be stretched so thin that it would simply not be able to sustain life, or possibly just cease to exist?

If the second is true, does that mean the big bang was not a 1 time event, but rather a continuous event that is occurring, even now. If you could go to the center of the universe, would you see the big bang still happening?

Just some questions...[emoji4]

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Laws of Nature, which existed before space and time itself

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe there's really any justification for believing that the laws of physics existed prior to the universe. It's not even clear what it would mean to say that anything could exist as such "prior to the universe". There's also no way of answering the question.

It also depends a little bit on how you define the laws. A lot of physics depends on various constants which we measure empirically, some of which we know to have been different in the very early universe. Does the changing of those constants over time imply differing laws of physics? I think in a sense it does, given that changes in those constants yield incredibly different phenomena. There's a good article about this question here.

I agree. The whole concept of "something sprang from nothing", is illogical.

In order for there to have been a big bang, something would had to have existed, be it heat, energy, matter, something. If there was absolutely nothing, then there would not have been anything to spark the big bang. It makes my mind go into meltdown just thinking of it lol.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And something else to blow your mind lol.

We say the universe is very big, vast, billions of light years...or something like that....

But....what if it isn't? Size is a construct only measured by the observer, and the observation point of view. What if you could step outside of the universe and find that the entire universe is actually only the size of a golf ball, after billions of years of expansion, it's actually very tiny, and the planets and all of us are simply small, on an atomic level.

Dang, mind melted again....sorry [emoji16]


I've often thought of this in our own scope of the universe. For you and I, we live in a city, and a trip across town could take a few minutes, but to a snail, or an ant, a small field might be an entire universe, and a trip from one side to the other could take a lifetime.

 

[frigidweirdo]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

Embedding your question is a latent assumption.

Why does it have to have been created?

(COMMENT)

It is not an either ⇔ or set of conditions. That is, it is not the case that the physics of the universe does not preclude the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being. IF there is a Supreme Being, THEN it may very well have set the conditions for physics; thus the path that created Space-Time as we understand it.

There is no known set of conditions wherein the laws of physics could eight prove or disprove the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being. (It would not be science.)

Again, just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the reality is we can't know what goes on outside of this universe. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. The universe doesn't have to have been created, but it might have been created. There might be some kind of God, there might not be.

We don't know, so why do we make stuff up to fill that gap in knowledge? Why not just admit we don't know?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

Interesting!

Yes, the reality is we can't know what goes on outside of this universe.

(COMMENT)

Well, we haven't really discussed the implications of a multiverse scenario. And I would prefer not to go there. At least in my lifetime, I cannot envision a time when anything, having to do with the multiverse, could standup to the scientific method.

It doesn't prove or disprove anything. The universe doesn't have to have been created, but it might have been created. There might be some kind of God, there might not be.

(COMMENT)

Well, since the universe is right here in front of us, we might say that through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), the universe, in some fashion, was created (although we might all be sharing a common delusion).

Again, "Faith-Based" Reasoning and the "Scientific" Reasoning through the process are two entirely different means to a solution.

We don't know, so why do we make stuff up to fill that gap in knowledge? Why not just admit we don't know?

(COMMENT)

It is a never-ending process.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Although science may not yet know the answer to the question as to the origin of the universe, doesn’t mean the answer is that the universe was ‘created.’

 

[Picaro]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

Embedding your question is a latent assumption.

Why does it have to have been created?

(COMMENT)

It is not an either ⇔ or set of conditions. That is, it is not the case that the physics of the universe does not preclude the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being. IF there is a Supreme Being, THEN it may very well have set the conditions for physics; thus the path that created Space-Time as we understand it.

There is no known set of conditions wherein the laws of physics could eight prove or disprove the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being. (It would not be science.)

Again, just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

Formal logic would not allow for back tracking to singular events, it would require repeatability as a feature of empiricism, which of course can't be done re 'big bangs' sorts of events, same with 'evolution'; formal logic is just circular reasoning at the end of the day, since it's a function of definitions. I think Thomas Aquinas and a few others others already did that with his Summa Theologica in a logical proof of 'God' using his definition of 'God'. There is nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes. All of the attempts to refute his proofs rely on legerdemain involving pasting their own definitions in place of his, and then pretending to have refuted him while they merely shifted terminology to suit an different conclusion, which is the case with all substitutions; you get a different result when you change the variables. We see the same terminological fallacies when people attempt to paste Judeo-Christian terminology onto old pre-Christian fables and then pronounce they found the true origins of bible stories, never mind they are far from the 'same stories'. "There is no known set of conditions wherein the laws of physics could eight prove or disprove the supernatural intervention of a Supreme Being" is entirely correct, but depending on whether you're using formal logic or informal logic, it can be proven logically and scientifically with formal logic.

It should be noted logic is not the same as 'Truth', which is an entirely different construct, and will usually defy 'rationalist' beliefs and most definitely 'formal' logic'.

 

[frigidweirdo]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ frigidweirdo, et al,

Interesting!

Yes, the reality is we can't know what goes on outside of this universe.

(COMMENT)

Well, we haven't really discussed the implications of a multiverse scenario. And I would prefer not to go there. At least in my lifetime, I cannot envision a time when anything, having to do with the multiverse, could standup to the scientific method.

It doesn't prove or disprove anything. The universe doesn't have to have been created, but it might have been created. There might be some kind of God, there might not be.

(COMMENT)

Well, since the universe is right here in front of us, we might say that through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), the universe, in some fashion, was created (although we might all be sharing a common delusion).

Again, "Faith-Based" Reasoning and the "Scientific" Reasoning through the process are two entirely different means to a solution.

We don't know, so why do we make stuff up to fill that gap in knowledge? Why not just admit we don't know?

(COMMENT)

It is a never-ending process.

View attachment 225067
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, we don't need to talk about a multi-universe or even a situation where the universe is something apart from other things, because we can't possibly know.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or does exist.

Well, you could say with logic based in this universe that something exists, but since you can't know what the logic is beyond this universe, it's also futile.

The problem here is that if the universe was created, what created it? Whatever created it had to have been created itself. If we call that creator God, then who created God? Anyone that created God had to also have been created, and on and on and on and on until we hit a wall and say "well, then something has to have appeared out of nothing".

So if the first creator could have been created out of nothing, then the universe could have been created out of nothing without the need for a God. Therefore kind of showing that through this logic (there might be other "logics" where this doesn't apply) that God doesn't exist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Beyond our own universe we know nothing. We literally have no idea what is there, if anything. We don't know how things function, we don't know how things appear. Nothing. No knowledge. We're so ignorant about this we're literally braindead.

So, how else could this have been created? I could throw up a million possibilities and the chances that I'm right will be very limited indeed. There'll be another infinite times two possibilities beyond that.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

I came to the idea that there are at least two time and space areas possible. One you could say came from reading the Bible, I should say that I am not a bible thumper. I found a story about a bird who sharpen his beak on a moutain and e.t.c the story indicated that the time involved in doing that incident took only one second in Gods time as I call it. The second at at the time matter first appeared was the the time space quantum. Best I have had so far. Hey, I also think that so called black holes are not holes but massive matter plants that attract matter and gas and the gravity is so high that light can not be reflected. The gravity become so intense that it collapses onto itself. and you know he rest.

 

[ding]

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Although science may not yet know the answer to the question as to the origin of the universe, doesn’t mean the answer is that the universe was ‘created.’

Ummm... actually the 2nd law of thermodynamics says there has to be a beginning. It isn’t possible for our universe to have existed forever. Or for that matter the energy and matter that was created when our universe began. Why? Because if it had the universe would be at thermal equilibrium, which we do not see.

I have already told you and explained to you the best explanation for how space and time began.

Space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event which adhered to the law of conservation. This means the laws of nature were already in place.

This disturbs you, so you reject the science.

 

[ding]

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Beyond our own universe we know nothing. We literally have no idea what is there, if anything. We don't know how things function, we don't know how things appear. Nothing. No knowledge. We're so ignorant about this we're literally braindead.

So, how else could this have been created? I could throw up a million possibilities and the chances that I'm right will be very limited indeed. There'll be another infinite times two possibilities beyond that.

Why would you expect matter and energy to be any different outside the boundary of the universe?

And no, there are not an infinite number of possibilities for the creation of space and time. In fact there is exactly one explanation that does not violate the law of conservation, inflation theory.

 

[ding]

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

How else do you think it could have happened? Magic?

I was only commenting on Taz's post. However, I have no idea what might have existed before the Big Bang. Unlike you, I don't feel any sort of surety about my knowledge of such things. It's possible that what existed prior to the Big Bang is something beyond human comprehension; it's possible the laws of nature you keep speaking about did exist. I have no problem with accepting my ignorance. I haven't yet figured out why you are so certain that you have the answer.

Because logic requires it and because leading experts believe it.

You have given reasons why you believe as you do. I'm not trying to say there are none. However, you have not shown that the laws of nature existing prior to the Big Bang has been proven. It is your certainty, your description of these ideas as fact, that I have been arguing against.

The creation of space and time did not violate the law of conservation. That is the basis you are looking for.