When did empty space, matter, energy, come into existence?

[StevenMerten]

Hello all,

When I read of the "Big Bang" scientific creation theory, it talks of energy from highly compressed mass exploding mass into empty space. I cannot help but think of God saying, "Hey! Get your own dirt!".

Famous cosmos scientist Stephen Hawking suggested that there most likly have been many or infinite, "Big Bang" then collapse cycles, through out time "before creation". (From Stephen Hawking's three DVD set Cosmos)

Pre-existing empty space, matter and energy is not my concept of God's creation, where God created from nothing. To me this is a scientific distraction from true creation, the creation of matter, energy and empty space (the physical cosmos). Stephen Hawking seems to be indicating that God simply used what He found laying around (matter, energy and empty space) for a hundred trillion, gazillion "Big Bang cycles" (which were similiar to "creation"), to "create" with 14 billion years ago.

"Time" is the measure of rate of change between empty space, matter and energy. Our spiritual God exists outside of empty space, matter, energy, and therefore outside of time which is the measure of rate of change between the three. Time has no control, limitation or effect on our spiritual God who exists outside of the physical world.

God looks at physical time, from infinite past to infinite future, as a human looks at a three inch piece of yarn. Our spiritual God can create His three inch piece of yarn (infinite past to infinite future physical time) from what ever point He desires. We have no scientific reason to suspect that our spiritual God did not create His three inch peice of yarn (infinite past to infinite future physical time) from the point of Adam as He says He did.

Stephen Hawking and other cosmos scientists are trying to use physical insturments to find a spiritual, outside of physical time, occurance.

Science has not even begun to scientifically prove or even explain how and when empty space, matter and energy came into existance. It seems lutacris to me for scientists, with such ignorance as to when and how, empty space, matter and energy came into existance, to set themselves up as judges, over God's Word, as to when our spiritual God, who exists outside of physical time, created the physical cosmos and physical time into existance.

What do you think? When did empty space, matter and energy, which the term "time" is used to measure the rate of change between them, come into existance.

 

[LoveForWisdom]

Hello all,

When I read of the "Big Bang" scientific creation theory, it talks of energy from highly compressed mass exploding mass into empty space. I cannot help but think of God saying, "Hey! Get your own dirt!".

Famous cosmos scientist Stephen Hawking suggested that there most likly have been many or infinite, "Big Bang" then collapse cycles, through out time "before creation". (From Stephen Hawking's three DVD set Cosmos)

Pre-existing empty space, matter and energy is not my concept of God's creation, where God created from nothing. To me this is a scientific distraction from true creation, the creation of matter, energy and empty space (the physical cosmos). Stephen Hawking seems to be indicating that God simply used what He found laying around (matter, energy and empty space) for a hundred trillion, gazillion "Big Bang cycles" (which were similiar to "creation"), to "create" with 14 billion years ago.

"Time" is the measure of rate of change between empty space, matter and energy. Our spiritual God exists outside of empty space, matter, energy, and therefore outside of time which is the measure of rate of change between the three. Time has no control, limitation or effect on our spiritual God who exists outside of the physical world.

God looks at physical time, from infinite past to infinite future, as a human looks at a three inch piece of yarn. Our spiritual God can create His three inch piece of yarn (infinite past to infinite future physical time) from what ever point He desires. We have no scientific reason to suspect that our spiritual God did not create His three inch peice of yarn (infinite past to infinite future physical time) from the point of Adam as He says He did.

Stephen Hawking and other cosmos scientists are trying to use physical insturments to find a spiritual, outside of physical time, occurance.

Science has not even begun to scientifically prove or even explain how and when empty space, matter and energy came into existance. It seems lutacris to me for scientists, with such ignorance as to when and how, empty space, matter and energy came into existance, to set themselves up as judges, over God's Word, as to when our spiritual God, who exists outside of physical time, created the physical cosmos and physical time into existance.

What do you think? When did empty space, matter and energy, which the term "time" is used to measure the rate of change between them, come into existance.

An admission of an actual infinite is a reductio ad absurdum. Such is the one of the many problems with the writings of Stephen Hawkings. On the rest, I've corresponded with Pandas Thumb's very own and they have suggested to me the absurd conclusion that space and time do not really exist!

 

[busterdog]

Day One of creation.

 

[busterdog]

An admission of an actual infinite is a reductio ad absurdum. Such is the one of the many problems with the writings of Stephen Hawkings. On the rest, I've corresponded with Pandas Thumb's very own and they have suggested to me the absurd conclusion that space and time do not really exist!

Einstein: Time is a stubbornly persistent illusion.

God: and the evening and morning were day one.

 

[StevenMerten]

Day One of creation.

Hello busterdog,

I suspect that you are the, one of one, vote in my poll who voted other.

Actually my "from God's focus point of Adam" I was meaning the biblical acount of creation. Literally six rotations of earth before God made Adam. I did not want to put six days before God made Adam because many people have different thoughts on what a day really means. Some think of God's day as a billion of our years.

I also wanted to leave room for people to consider the thought of even infinite past flowing out into existence from the week God made Adam. I did not want to confuse or inhibit this concept. God exists outside of physical time and has complete control over physical past and future time.

With so few charater places in a poll question box, I used "from God's focus point of Adam". I hope this did not offend or confuse the poll question.

I would hope that future pollers would simply vote, "from the focus point of Adam" as meaning what we think of as six rotations of the earth before God made Adam. Then voice any objection suggestion of a better poll option in a post box.

I hope I did not offend or confuse you on the poll question options.

I ask this mainly not to confuse, potentially thousands of viewers, who may visit this thread and gain an incorrect image from the poll on how CF members view the creation of empty space, matter and energy. I do not know how to edit the poll question to make it more clear. I accept any constructive critisizm on the poll question options in the form of posts. I simply hope that we do not give a false impression from the poll to CF viewers due to any failure on my part to have stated poll options clearly or without room for disagreement.

Thanks for posting.

 

[KerrMetric]

It seems lutacris to me for scientists, with such ignorance as to when and how, empty space, matter and energy came into existance, to set themselves up as judges, over God's Word, as to when our spiritual God, who exists outside of physical time, created the physical cosmos and physical time into existance.

Nice strawman. Completely useless but a nice strawman nonetheless.

 

[gluadys]

When did empty space, matter, energy, come into existence?

About 13.7 billion years ago

When I read of the "Big Bang" scientific creation theory, it talks of energy from highly compressed mass exploding mass into empty space. I cannot help but think of God saying, "Hey! Get your own dirt!".

Actually this is a common misconception about the big bang. The actual view of the scientists is that there was no pre-existing space for the universe to expand into. Rather it was the expansion of the universe that created space (space-time really).

Famous cosmos scientist Stephen Hawking suggested that there most likly have been many or infinite, "Big Bang" then collapse cycles, through out time "before creation". (From Stephen Hawking's three DVD set Cosmos)

No one, including Hawking, knows what the state of the universe was prior to the big bang. He is speculating and cannot adduce evidence to support his hypothesis.

Pre-existing empty space, matter and energy is not my concept of God's creation, where God created from nothing.

You won't get any argument on that here.

We have no scientific reason to suspect that our spiritual God did not create His three inch peice of yarn (infinite past to infinite future physical time) from the point of Adam as He says He did.

Well, yes we do. The universe has been around for about 13.7 billion years. Homo sapiens has only been around for less that 200 thousand years.

Stephen Hawking and other cosmos scientists are trying to use physical insturments to find a spiritual, outside of physical time, occurance.

No, he is not. Science doesn't do that. He is looking for a physical reality.

Science has not even begun to scientifically prove or even explain how and when empty space, matter and energy came into existance.

Actually there is a fairly complete understanding of the origin of the universe going back to t=10^-43 seconds subsequent to the big bang.

http://www.amtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_history.html


That is a fraction of a second with 43 zeroes in the denominator.

It seems lutacris to me for scientists, with such ignorance as to when and how, empty space, matter and energy came into existance, to set themselves up as judges, over God's Word, as to when our spiritual God, who exists outside of physical time, created the physical cosmos and physical time into existance.

Did you know that one of the earliest formulations of big bang theory was made by a Catholic priest? Did you know that a prominent atheist astronomer led the resistance to scientific acceptance of big bang theory because, in his opinion, it was too close to the religious idea of creation?

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

We must again let scripture be the ultimate authority, as nobody else was around to witness creation. God clearly said that He made light on day one. Light exists because of some very fundamental physical laws - electric charge and attraction, magnetism, and two nuclear forces. This is what was defined on day one. Before this day there was matter, but not atoms. Prov 8:22-30 describes a bit of what "formless and void" was like.

As far as the big bang farce, if you examine what is being claimed, they are talking about a "singularity". This is another way of talking about dividing by zero. Essentially, the big bang farce is what occurs as we leave the point where a divide by zero happened.

 

[Ave Maria]

I voted Other because the first option makes no sense to me. It first came into being around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago when God created everything.

 

[Jadis40]

When did creation happen? Gluadys said it:

13.7 billion years ago or so.

The Big Bang Model predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background, and it was discovered in 1965. Here's some info from this website:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by George Gamow in 1948, and by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1950. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a pair of papers in the Physical Review: one by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their discovery.

Something else that doesn't add up in YEC is the fact that they have to come up with wild statements about time being faster in the past, or light in transit, which is just bad science. I think they know they have a monumental hurdle to get over with the distance between earth and other galaxies and stars, because it doesn't fit into their timescale of a 6,000 year earth.

Cases in point:

1. The Crab Nebula
This supernova was first observed in 1054. It's been estimated to be 6,300 light years away.

2. The Andromeda Galaxy
This Galaxy is estimated to be 2.5 million light years away.

3. The Great Attractor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

Is estimated to be 150 million and 250 million light years away

4. The Sloan Great Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall
Measures 1.37 billion light years in length and is approximate 1 billion light-years distant.

If you want to get closer to home, the center of our our own galaxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

The main disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light-years in diameter, about 250,000 to 300,000 light-years in circumference, and outside the Galactic core, about 1,000 light-years in thickness.

So, not only does YEC fall flat with supernovas that predate their date of creation, it also falls flat with the vast distances to the furthest reaches of the observable universe.

 

[gluadys]

We must again let scripture be the ultimate authority, as nobody else was around to witness creation.

Shouldn't God be the ultimate authority?
Is creation not a witness to itself?
Where does scripture claim to be an authority over creation?

As far as the big bang farce, if you examine what is being claimed, they are talking about a "singularity". This is another way of talking about dividing by zero. Essentially, the big bang farce is what occurs as we leave the point where a divide by zero happened.

Don't confuse the event with the mathematics used to describe it. The reason we cannot get back to "time=0" is because the math fails. We do get a mathematical singularity. But we can get back as far as "time=10^-43 seconds" without the math failing. The inability of the math to deal with the quantum reality of the first infinitesimal fraction of a second after the big bang doesn't mean it never happened. Especially since we have physical evidence that it did.

 

[Jadis40]

Again, going along with what Gluadys said about t=0, there's a whole lot of complicated math involved in nucleochronology that goes into determining a mean age of the elements in the universe.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...198..145T

That's a link to an article going into it.

Here's another, that details how they get the date for one star:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jleaman/classes/cosmology_with_CP/project/nucleochronology.htm


So, with this link, we're not talking about the age of the sun, but a completely different star:

It is logical to assume that the original abundance of thorium in this star is given by the scaled solar system r-process thorium abundance. A detailed study of the r-process abundances in CS 22892 lead to an age of 15.2 ± 3.7Gyr for this star. This in turn, implies a 2 σ lower limit to the age of the universe of t0 ≥7.8 Gyr from nucleochronology.

Specifically, they're studying K giant star CS 22892

So, with that, the universe could actually be older than the 13.7 billion years that is often quoted.

I found something else too:

http://babbage.sissa.it/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9808/9808200.pdf

While they vary, using the oldest globular clusters, they've come up with a range of dates for age, under Table 1

 

[Xaero]

Einstein: Time is a stubbornly persistent illusion.

The absoluteness of time is an illusion. No christian should have a problem with that (Psa90:4, 2.Pe3:8).

and the evening and morning were day one

the exact words are: "and there was evening and there was morning day one"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=5&version=KJV#5
i don't see a "were: וַיִּהְיוּ " after "morning"

 

[StevenMerten]

Actually this is a common misconception about the big bang. The actual view of the scientists is that there was no pre-existing space for the universe to expand into. Rather it was the expansion of the universe that created space (space-time really).

Hello Jadis,

Gluadys is saying that science believes that there was nothing, no matter, no energy, no empty space and no time, before 13.7 billion (plus or minus) years ago. No strings ( string/M-theory ) attached! A little pun humor. Do you agree with gluadys?

I have read that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. I have read of Stephen Hawkings contemplation of multiple "big bangs" before the "big bang" that "created" our universe. I have never heard, or at least never understood, that science solidly believes that there was nothing, not even empty space, existing before the "big bang".

I have been reading the links that you and gluadys have provided. Needless to say, they go a little deep for my present background. Could you, gluadys or anyone, cut and paste some quotes with links where science is solidly stating that there was no empty space, matter, energy, strings or time before that first second of the "big bang"?

Correct me if I am wrong, but time is the rate of change between empty space, matter, energy and I will now add "strings". The "beginning of time" would be when all these things did not exist before that period in time. To prove that the first fraction of a second of the "big bang" was the beginning of time, science has to prove that there was nothing, no empty space, strings, matter or energy before this first fraction of a second of the "big bang". Is this not true?

In order to find the beginning of time, looking back in time as far as science can see does not automatically mean that there was nothing, no strings, no empty space, no matter and no energy before that first minut fraction of a second of the "big bang". What we are looking for is not the evolving universe, but the edge of physical time from which it can be proved, or at least solidly reasonably deducted, that there is no physical time, strings, empty space, matter, energy before that moment.

If we could direct this thread away from what science sees, understands and can prove about what happenned after that first second in physical time, the first second of the "big bang", to what science sees, understands or can prove did not exist before that first second in physical time, the "big bang" (which would be, supposedly, nothing), this would be great.

Our spiritual God exists before the begining of time and He exists outside of physical time. God has complete Power and Control over past, present and future physical time. I do not equate the begining of physical time with spiritual creation which flows out into the past and future from God's focus point of Adam, thousands of years ago, but I am truely amaized if science has found the beginning of physical time. Especially if they can prove empty space, strings, matter and energy did not exist before this moment in time.

Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread. Your posts are great!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I put other... because humanly graspable concepts of time break down at the Big Bang singularity point... so asking what came "before" the Big Bang is a meaningless question... essentially an artifact of human experience...

Same way the human mind can't visualise hyperdimensionality, nor can we visualise the appropriate time model extant at the time of the singularity. Hence, by trying to force Big Bang cosmological concepts into mental framework that deals with our everyday ideas of time and space, we essentially make the BB harder to understand, rather than easier.

Read Hawking's "Brief History of Time" the whole way through, it gives some good ideas re this

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Looking for scientific proof of nothing existing before BB begining of time.

You won't get it... largely because, as far as science is concerned, nothing is "knowable" before the BB singularity.

2 things... Our current timeline does not extend before the BB, so "before" the BB is a meaningless concept, just like north of the north pole is. The N pole is, if you like, the source of all "northness", like the BB is the source of time. So even if something analagous to time exists outside the BB universe, it isn't part of OUR timeline

the other, as I said above,m is that in the ultra early stages of the cosmos, time may have functioned differently, and had more in common with a spatial dimension, then time as we know it today

 

[StevenMerten]

You won't get it... largely because, as far as science is concerned, nothing is "knowable" before the BB singularity.

I put other... because humanly graspable concepts of time break down at the Big Bang singularity point... so asking what came "before" the Big Bang is a meaningless question... essentially an artifact of human experience...

Hello EnemyParty,

So, in your mind, we have scientists who know nothing about when empty space, matter and energy came into existance, telling God when creation happened. Is this true?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, in your mind, we have scientists who know nothing about when empty space, matter and energy came into existance, telling God when creation happened. Is this true?

Um... no, not really...

For our purposes, and as far as we, here, in this universe, can ever tell... the Big Bang appears to have occured around 14.7 billion years ago, and, for our purposes, it is the originator point of all time, matter, energy, and empty space. Prior to this (although,as already mentioned, "prior" may not be the correct term) there was not even empty space for there to be nothing in

I don't think any scientists are trying to tell God anything about it, are they?

 

[Assyrian]

The absoluteness of time is an illusion. No christian should have a problem with that (Psa90:4, 2.Pe3:8).
the exact words are: "and there was evening and there was morning day one"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=5&version=KJV#5
i don't see a "were: וַיִּהְיוּ " after "morning"

'and the evening and morning were day one' is an odd combination of the AV's cumbersome 'And the evening and the morning were' with the more modern 'day one'.

I sometimes quote the 'day one' versions, but I think a better translation is "and there was evening and there was morning one day" This is how יום אחד is usually translated elsewhere in the bible. Given there there was already at least one day and night before the evening began 'one day', it was hardly 'the first day' or even 'day one'. Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Then of course I also think the better translation of verse 8 is And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Of course it takes away from the idea there were only meant to be six days.

 

[StevenMerten]

Hello EnemyParty,

So, in your mind, we have scientists who know nothing about when empty space, matter and energy came into existance, telling God when creation happened. Is this true?

Um... no, not really...

For our purposes, and as far as we, here, in this universe, can ever tell... the Big Bang appears to have occured around 14.7 billion years ago, and, for our purposes, it is the originator point of all time, matter, energy, and empty space. Prior to this (although,as already mentioned, "prior" may not be the correct term) there was not even empty space for there to be nothing in

I don't think any scientists are trying to tell God anything about it, are they?

Hello EnemyParty,

On the bell curve of random possibilities, what are the odds that science radomly sellected the term "creation", without any influence or implication to religion and the bible, to scientifically define the first second of their "big bang" theory, where they have (may have) no knowledge or scientific proof that empty space, matter and energy came into existance?

The bible also uses a more scientific term "begining of time" (time being the measure of rate of change between empty space, matter and energy). Why does not science focus on the term "begining of time" which would more scientifically define how science would see a period where there was no empty space, matter, energy or strings before that time? I think it is because they do believe there was empty space, matter, energy or strings before the first second of the "big bang" theory and therefore physical time before what they deceptively call "creation".

I believe that it is the arrogance of science, puffed up in their self image of how intelligent they are, that they have intentionally chosen the biblical term "creation" to define the first second of the "big bang" theory.

I believe that God created the universe thousands of years ago at His focus point of Adam. I also believe that what science has found in the "big bang" theory to be credible. I believe that our spiritual God exists outside of physical time, which He created. I believe that God has Complete Power and Complete Control over the whole of physical time. I believe that the past of physical time as well as the future of physical time flows out into existance from God's focus point of Adam.

I am greatly offended that science has crossed the line between scientific fact and theology. I am greatly offended that science, in their puffed up arrogance, has stood up and implied that God's biblical account of of creation is untrue. I believe in God's Word and that God has the Power to do all things. I believe that God exists outside of and has complete Control over and Power over past and future physical time. I believe that God has the Power to bring Creation into existance, at any point, in what science sees as physical time. I am greatly offended if my American tax dollars were used for some abomination for science to dictate to me on what I should believe in regard to God's creation.

When I first started watching Stephen Hawking's Cosmos, on the "big bang" theory I was in awe and thrilled to see what science had found, in what I believe to be the past of physical time which God, who exists outside of physical time and has the Power to do all things, brought into existance, thousands of years ago.

Then Stephen Hawking's went on the theological attack of God's Word as to when God created the universe. Stephen Hawkings went to the Vatican to confront Pope John Paul II on when God created the universe. Stephen Hawkings went on the attack of the Church in the erra of Galeleo. This is how I see Stephen Hawkings thinking: "I Stephen Hawkings (snicker snicker) (world renown cosmologist) want to address the credibility of God's Word." Who the heck is he, mr. world renown cosmologist, to tell God, Who is capable of all things, when creation happened?

Science, choosing to use the biblical word "creation" to describe the first gazzillionth of a second of their "big bang" theory, regardless of them even having any proof, or reasonable thought, that empty space, strings, matter and energy, did not exist before that moment, is science intentionally crossing the line between stating scientific fact to setting themselves up as theologans, dictating to Christianity as to when our All Powerful God, who can do all things, brought creation into existance.