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

gluadys · Mar 10, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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 don't think that is a fair representation of scientific opinion so, no, that is not what I am saying. Nor am I asserting that science is saying that.

The key factor is that the big bang is the starting point about our knowledge of the universe. Whatever state existed "before" the big bang (though "before" is not the correct term) is unknowable. But scientists readily speculate on what it might have been, hence all the ideas about strings and 'branes, etc.

The other key factor is that time/space and energy/matter are properities of the universe and do not exist "outside" it. Though again "outside" is not the correct term, as it implies that there is space beyond the universe.

The properties of the universe can only exist with the universe and the universe can only exist with its properties, so they have to originate simultaneously.

But this does not mean that some sort of originating state could not exist which formed the conditions for the big bang to occur. We just can't tell if such a state existed or discover its properties.

Assyrian · Mar 10, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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?

Where do you get the idea the 'begining of time' is a biblical term? The phrase is used in the NIV and Good News in 2Tim 1:9 He saved us and called us to be his own people, not because of what we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace. He gave us this grace by means of Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. And in
Titus 1:2 which is based on the hope for eternal life. God, who does not lie, promised us this life before the beginning of time.

But that does not make it a biblical phrase, it is simply an English phrase that has a close enough general sense to the Greek for an idiomatic translation. For an idea of what the Greek actually says it is worth looking at more the literal translations. Greens Literal Translation says
before eternal times. Youngs Literal Translation says
before the times of the ages.

Neither verse makes any attempt at describing how time began.

EnemyPartyII · Mar 10, 2007

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?

Ah, the old... "the chance of creation happenuing by itself is so small that it proves there was outside assistance" arguement...

2 things,

1. This arguement falls apart under the laws of probability... probability IS a very powerful tool for determining which of two theories is likely to be correct. Take your two theories, determine the probability of both, and the one with the higher probability is, virtually without exception, the correct one.

However, to work this for the "God did it/just happened" possible pair of explanations, we must work out what the probability of God creating the universe is AS WELL as the probability of the universe "just happening". So far, I have not seen anyone ever attempt to work out the probability of a theisytic creation event, and, until such time as someone does come up with a realistic set of probability data on the subject, this is a logically false argument.

The second... there is nothing to say that God did not set up the Big Bang, indeed, this is my personal believe, that God created the conditions at which the point singularity could occure, and designed those conditions so as to bring about the universe as we kinow it today.

There is no observable data that wuggests anything to the contrary. There is, however, vast amounts of observable and experimental data that supports the idea that the universe is older than a few thousand years.

Most noteably, 15 billion light years of universe in any given direction (give or take a billion years) would seem to suggest 15 billion years of age. I have yet to see anyone provide a plausible explanation for why a 6000 year old universe would have a 30 billion light year diameter

shernren · Mar 11, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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?

...

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.

But Genesis 1:1 translated into English, which in any version has the word "created" in it, has been in the collective Western consciousness and in practically all individual Western minds for many centuries already. Of course using the word "creation" proves that the Bible has influenced the minds of writers of scientific texts. It doesn't prove that the Bible is a scientific text.

Xaero · Mar 11, 2007

Assyrian said:
'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'.

you are right... "day second" sounds nonsense

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'.

mhhh ... some would argue that god only called those things, not that day and night happened

EnemyPartyII · Mar 11, 2007

Doesn't anyone else have a problem with the idea of evening going and morning coming BEFORE the Sun is created?

Deamiter · Mar 11, 2007

I keep wanting to create a thread on how "evening and morning" cannot refer to literal days because to the Hebrew people, a day lasted from evening to evening... but people seem to like to ignore that little fact too.

EnemyPartyII · Mar 11, 2007

I keep wanting to create a thread on how "evening and morning" cannot refer to literal days because to the Hebrew people, a day lasted from evening to evening... but people seem to like to ignore that little fact too.

How do you have an "evening to evening" period without a sun?

Jadis40 · Mar 11, 2007

EnemyPartyII said:
Doesn't anyone else have a problem with the idea of evening going and morning coming BEFORE the Sun is created?

Yes, this is one of the chief reasons I don't take a literal 6-day 24 hour interpretation of Genesis 1. You can't have day and night without planetary rotation, or a sun with the effects of gravity which kept the earth in a stable orbit when the earth was being formed and still keeps the earth in a stable orbit.

IF the sun were only 10,000- 6,000 years old to go along with that we should still see signs of the nebula that surrounded it, such as exists around T Tauri stars:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/TTauri.html

Some pictures of observed T Tauri stars are here:

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/ao/images/TTauri/HLTau.html

Actually, with an age of 6,000 years, it should still be a protostar:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/birth/proto.html

So, I think that if we observe these processes of stellar formation in other instances throughout the galaxy, then it seems logical, at least to me, that our sun and solar system was no exception, and took place over a span of billions of years.

So, in a very real sense, the act of the creation is still taking place.

pgp_protector · Mar 11, 2007

I just love Biased poll questions

Silent Bob · Mar 11, 2007

Other. Don't know, can't know.

Assyrian · Mar 11, 2007

Xaero said:
you are right... "day second" sounds nonsense

mhhh ... some would argue that god only called those things, not that day and night happened

I don't think so. Gen 1:4 ...And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

God separated light from the darkness. That must mean both light and darkness happened and God called them day and night. The light and darkness which happened were at least one day and night before the evening and morning 'one day'.

Assyrian · Mar 11, 2007

Deamiter said:
I keep wanting to create a thread on how "evening and morning" cannot refer to literal days because to the Hebrew people, a day lasted from evening to evening... but people seem to like to ignore that little fact too.

It can, but you need to reread the literal interpretation of Genesis.

I think it is quite correct to take the biblical day as starting in the evening and read Genesis from that perspective, especially as the biblical calendar with its Sabbath running from evening to evening is a commemoration of the creation.

What we have if we read Genesis this way are periods of creation followed by each of the six days. Even if you take the days literally we are not told the periods of creation are that run before each day. In fact an open minded literal interpretation will recognise the passage of time in many of the periods of creation before a new numbered day starts.

We have looked at the night and day (at least one of each) before 'one day'. The creation of plants describes trees producing fruit before 'a third day' begins. While before the fourth day we have the sun moon and stars marking out seasons, days and years.

KerrMetric · Mar 11, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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?

Are you a professional strawman creator or just an experienced amateur?

Either way it is disingenuous.

StevenMerten · Mar 11, 2007

gluadys said:
I don't think that is a fair representation of scientific opinion so, no, that is not what I am saying. Nor am I asserting that science is saying that.

The key factor is that the big bang is the starting point about our knowledge of the universe. Whatever state existed "before" the big bang (though "before" is not the correct term) is unknowable. But scientists readily speculate on what it might have been, hence all the ideas about strings and 'branes, etc.

The other key factor is that time/space and energy/matter are properities of the universe and do not exist "outside" it. Though again "outside" is not the correct term, as it implies that there is space beyond the universe.

The properties of the universe can only exist with the universe and the universe can only exist with its properties, so they have to originate simultaneously.

But this does not mean that some sort of originating state could not exist which formed the conditions for the big bang to occur. We just can't tell if such a state existed or discover its properties.

Hello gluadys,

Young Earth Creationists are talking about when empty space, matter and energy (the cosmos) came into existence when they use the term creation.

As you describe, Old Earth Creationists are simply talking about what science can see and measure of empty space, matter and energy and then science labled this "creation". Science has no proof or concept that anything (matter, energy and empty space) actually came into existance from nothing 13.7 billion years ago. Something could have converted from one physical form to another physical form, as happens throughout time, and all the time, but nothing came into existence from nothing (creation) that science has proof of or even believes happened. Science has no proof or solid theory on anything being created into existence from nothing, 13.7 billion years ago.

Are we in agreement?

YEC understanding creation as the cosmos coming into existence, verses, OEC seeing "creation" as only a segment of time that science can see, but science admitting that empty space, matter and energy, did not come into existence at that moment, means that the two groups are not talking about the same thing. There is an emense difference.

Suppose our spiritual God, who exists outside of physical time, and has complete control over past and present physical time, created infinite past and future physical time thousands of years ago? If empty space, matter and energy (in one form or another), go back in physical time to infinite past, science looks a bit goofy sellecting the unscientific term "creation" to describe (down to the second) the last 13.7 billion years.

If science is not going to diciplin themselves to define "creation" as a time when they can prove or give a good theory that there was nothing- no empty space, matter and energy (or a pre-form state of physical substance of the three) -before that moment, why does not science just throw a dart at the wall or pick the time when the sun fired up or when the moon went into orbit, or when water formed on the earth to sellect to use the "scientific" term "creation" for?

When I hear OEC say that "creation" happened 13.7 billion years ago, but science telling us that they do not believe nor do they have any proof that empty space, matter and energy came into existence at this time, I feel OEC have been emensly duped by science's abuse and sciences ulterior motives in thier abuse of the term "creation" to describe what happened 13.7 billion years ago.

What do you think?

gluadys · Mar 12, 2007

StevenMerten said:
Hello gluadys,

Young Earth Creationists are talking about when empty space, matter and energy (the cosmos) came into existence when they use the term creation.

As you describe, Old Earth Creationists are simply talking about what science can see and measure of empty space, matter and energy and then science labled this "creation". Science has no proof or concept that anything (matter, energy and empty space) actually came into existance from nothing 13.7 billion years ago. Something could have converted from one physical form to another physical form, as happens throughout time, and all the time, but nothing came into existence from nothing (creation) that science has proof of or even believes happened. Science has no proof or solid theory on anything being created into existence from nothing, 13.7 billion years ago.

Are we in agreement?

No and yes.

The evidence substantially supports that what we know as "the universe" came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. The starting point of the universe is also the starting point for space, time, energy and matter.

Now whether these came into existence from nothing or from some undefined pre-existing condition is a different question. Is the universe all there is, or is our universe part of a larger multi-verse reality?

So you are not correct in saying we do not know when time, space, energy and matter came into existence. We do know the when. But you are correct in saying that even though we have a defined starting point for the universe, science does not show whether or not it arose from nothing.

but science admitting that empty space, matter and energy, did not come into existence at that moment,

Science is not admitting that. They did come into existence at the moment the universe came into existence. And that was 13.7 billion years ago.

If empty space, matter and energy (in one form or another), go back in physical time to infinite past,

They don't. They go back to the beginning of the universe. This has become a point on which science and Christianity agree. The known universe is not infinite in time. It had a beginning point.

This agreement did not always exist. Numerous philosophies and theologies assume the universe is eternal, extending into infinite past and future. Until big bang cosmology came along, science acted as though the universe was eternal too. For without the big bang, there is no scientific way to support the finite existence (temporally or spatially) of the universe.

This does not mean we can simply say the big bang is the moment of creation. But it is a scientific theory that sets a limit on the time-frame of the existence of the universe. So it is compatible with a doctrine of creation and some would even say, suggestive of the doctrine.

If science is not going to diciplin themselves to define "creation" as a time when they can prove or give a good theory that there was nothing- no empty space, matter and energy (or a pre-form state of physical substance of the three) -before that moment,

It is not the business of science to do any such thing. The big bang is a fact and its timing is a fact even if there is some sort of created reality which existed "prior" to its occurrence. (We have difficulty avoiding inappropriate temporal images here.)

For science it makes no difference to big bang cosmology whether it occurred in nothingness or in the context of a reality other than nothing. Nor, in the latter case, does it make any difference whether that reality was created or eternal. There is, of course, a natural scientific curiosity about the initial conditions of the big bang, hence the speculations about multi-verses, evolving universes, quantum vacuum and so on. But whatever the initial conditions, what happened after the big bang and when remains pretty much the same.

why does not science just throw a dart at the wall or pick the time when the sun fired up or when the moon went into orbit, or when water formed on the earth to sellect to use the "scientific" term "creation" for?

Well, if ex nihilo is a characteristic of creation, none of those moments apply as they all occurred after there was something. While we cannot say the big bang was creation out of nothing, it is the only moment we know of when creation out of nothing could have occurred. If creation out of nothing did not coincide with the big bang, it certainly did not coincide with any event occurring within the universe since its existence.

but science telling us that they do not believe nor do they have any proof that empty space, matter and energy came into existence at this time,

Where do you find science saying that?

Assyrian · Mar 12, 2007

Create comes from the Latin creare to make or produce. If we are talking about the creation of the Universe, it refers to when the universe was first formed. But it doesn't tell us how it was formed. Now there is a specific doctrine referred to as ex-nihilo creation, creation from nothing, saying God created the universe from nothing, though I am not sure the bible actually teaches that. I tells us God created everything, but not how he created it.

Not every use of the word creation specifies that it is ex-nihilo. This is a very specific use, while create is much broader word and usually does not have any ex-nihilo connotation. Does creative writing mean starting without pen and paper. Has anyone ever cried 'I have created a monster' without starting off with preexisting components or bodyparts?

busterdog · Mar 12, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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. No offense of course, but I was a little thrown.

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.

I was ready to agree with you, except the reference to Adam in the OP confused me, as you suspected. No offense of course, but I was a little thrown.

There have been some interesting theories about how genesis might be interpreted in view of modern physics and relativity. While even the YECs have to struggle with this text, it remains quite hard to get away from a surface text: six days is equivalent to six earth revolutions. The measure of time having been instituted before there were revolutions of earth to coincide with them.

As absurd as the surface text sounds, and while creativity is still welcome in trying to work some kinks out of how we assimilate the text, is it less crazy that God being a baby born to a woman?

As much opportunity as there was for the most eleborate of constructs, it does appear that God in fact settled on a particular form and then walked in His own garden and later was even born into it.

I just can't seem to get the text to do otherwise.

busterdog · Mar 12, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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?

I have turned blue waiting for a recognition of this critical, even if rhetorical, question.

Thanks.

This is why a six day creation is no less statistically absurd than any other formulation.

busterdog · Mar 12, 2007

StevenMerten said:
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.

And let's not forget who was first to define the creation of things like light as seperate from darkness at a definite point in time?

Did science? No. They reached this conclusion only in the 20th century. The universe was mostly an eternal entity after Aristotle, except for some lingering and disposable references to creation by various sexual acts in Egypt/Babylon and other creation-based concepts coming from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Is that mere coincidence? How can a body of work be so consistently correct in spite of the prevailing and constantly excused human studies of nature and yet be so disdained?

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

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

At Godâs focus point of Adam.

God did not create it. It always existed.

Science believes it magically appeared right before the âBig Bangâ.

Long before creation.

Other. Please post concept.

Legend

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

I just follow Christ.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Noted strange person

Silent Bob

Guest

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

I Love You, God!

Legend

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

At Godâs focus point of Adam.

Science believes it magically appeared right before the âBig Bangâ.