ICANT'S position in the creation debate

For the millionth time, possibly neither.At what point on a beach ball does the ball begin?

ICANT, God did it... God existed prior to time and SPOKE hebulalala be donelalalalal and it was so....If you don't understand that there is a current mathematical impossibility in relation to that question than you will never be able to understand how complicated that issue is.. I don't completely understand it and I am sure that people who are well versed in the field are having issues with it or we would know the mystery of the universe... I would say that the universe and time came into existence synchronously but then I think that would still imply a begining which is where the issue is... Then we go back to, where did that come from, over and over and over and over until the wheels fall off..Edited by Sasuke, : del-add

---

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

Well, to be fair, if space-time is a quality of the universe, then before the universe existed (if before can be used in this sense) then there was no before for it to exist in, and nowhere in this non-before non-time non-space for it to exist at.It's getting more complicated by the second, so you'll have to get your mind around contemplating the fact that without the universe to supply space-time, there could be neither space, nor time.as to whether the universe had a beginning, will have an end or what, that's a really, really difficult question and far greater minds than mine (and, dare I say, yours) are trying to work such questions out.If you want to point and say "godidit", that doesn't answer the question. One of these days, the scientists may give you the right, complete and full answer. We've already got facts to go on (background radiation, distances between stars and galaxies, many pieces) and they all come together in the theories that are bandied about.The best working theory (and this is a scientific theory, not the laymans theory, do NOT get them mixed up on purpose) tells us the universe is 13 billion years old (or so) and started as an infinitesimally small speck which exploded into everything (and yes, I am very willing to admit my laymans explanation is inadequate and possibly wrong in important places).The thing is, the facts point to this.Where are your facts? Don't point to a book, I've got several that say the universe was an egg, that it's all in the mind of the buddha, that it was the ejaculate of some great god and his, er, hand (yes, very graphic). it's as airy-fairy as your bible and don't have any facts either. If it's metaphorical, fine, but then you don't think it's metaphorical.

Hi cavediver, Then what is the alternative?Because the universe exists today. The seam.Now if you want to know how it came to exist it began to exist in a factory where it was made.Since you love this analogy so much explain how it can represent expansion of the universe. This statement found Here says every partical began rushing apart from every other particle.Now lets take your beach ball and fill it with marbles.
Let the marbles represent the particles.
Let the beach ball represent the less than pea sized universe that exists at T=10^-43 .Lets assume the beach ball was small and you would have 21 marble's on any line you took that went through the center of the ball.Expansion says each of those marbles was separated as space began to grow between each marble.Somewhere in that beach ball is a marble that is the center marble it can never move as the space is simply growing between the marbles.To demonstrate lets take 21 marble's and place them on a table take a bunch of 1" blocks and place one between each of the marble's.Lets assume the marble's are 1/2" in diameter.When we started out the two marble's on the outside was 9 1/2" apart.Those same marble's are now 29 1/2" apart yet no marble has moved only the space got larger between the marble's.Your beach ball that started out 10 1/2" in diameter is now 30 1/2" in diameter.That means if you were the center marble the outside marble's are moving away from you 9 times as fast as your nearest neighbor in any direction.This also means that none of those marble's could ever run into each other.It also means that the outside marble's do not have neighbors in all directions.Since I am giving my opinion on creation I though I would give my opinion on expansion.Now if the quote from Cambridge is incorrect please correct it.If my understanding of it saying space grew between each particle is wrong, please explain what I missed.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Sasuke, I know that math is an invention of man, and when he tries to use it to prove the unknown he runs into trouble.So yes I understand that the math will never explain how or why the universe began to exist. It will not explain how time, space or anything else began to exist. Math breaks down at the singularity and becomes a silent mute saying nothing.At that point everything becomes metaphysics or spiritual.
In other words you believe something because you choose too. Not because you have physical evidence.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I would hardly consider math an invention.

Simple - paint globe lines on the ball and pick the north pole of the globe as the Big Bang. The lines of longitude, running from the north pole to the south pole, are lines of time. The circles of latitude are lines of space. As you move forward in time from the Big Bang, following one of the line of longitude, the circles of latitude grow from zero size at the big bang, to a maximum at the equator. This is the expansion of the Universe.If you do not like the Big Crunch as a feature of this analogy, and would prefer a perpetually expanding model, simply cut open the ball at the south pole, and stretch the southern hemisphere surface outwards into a bell shape, keeping the northern hemisphere largely the same. Unfortunately, no. The Universe at varying times is represented by the succession of circles of latitude, and space-time as a whole is represented by the *surface* of the beach ball. The interior of the ball plays no part in this analogy, nor does anything exterior to the ball. Unfortunately, I am no longer a member of the department, so correcting it will be a challenge. But I would certainly force a re-write of that first paragraph were I still there...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Hi greyseal,As I don't remember welcoming you to EvC, Welcome. You are referring to the Standard BBT which is made up of several hypothesis.In this thread I have been trying to obtain the scientific evidence of the facts of where that infinitesimally small speck got it's existence from.I was told in another thread science had proven that the Genesis account of creation was fiction/false.So I started this thread in search of the scientific evidence that would prove Genesis 1:1 false.Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.BBT says, the universe began to expand and produced what we see today.So the BBT does not address how the universe existed or began to expand. The fact is the BBT theory is man's attempt to explain how God created the heaven and the earth as declared in Genesis 1:1.It is not trying to explain how the universe began to exist. Fact 1 the universe exists.Fact 2 expansion of the universe proves the universe is not infinite in all directions. If it was infinite into the past everything would have expended all energy and the universe would be dark, cold, and dead. It does declare it to be infinite going forward.Fact 3 If the universe is not infinite in all directions it had to begin to exist.Fact 4 The book you don't like says God created the heaven and the earth.Fact 4a Science has no evidence and says nothing of how the universe began to exist. Why do you think everyone wants to say it "just is"? This would come under metaphysics. Which is the only thing Science can put forth as to how the universe began to exist, which carries no more weight than me saying God created the heaven and the earth.Fact 5 That same book predicted that the universe was expanding over 2700 years ago.Fact 6 The CMBR confirms that prediction.Fact 7 Since it was stretched out the observations that the universe is lumpy confirms that stretching.Now this is just my opinion of creation that I am giving.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi cavediver, Are you saying that the universe at T=10^-43 does not expand in all directions by the space between the particles expanding?Does the CMBR tell us that everything is receeding away from us in all directions?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, why would I say that? No, not really, or at least certainly not in isolation. Expansion is observed in the red-shift of galaxies and quasars. Simple observation of the CMBR does not tell us this; not even with spectral analysis. However, once we appreciate the expansion, we would expect to see a CMBR... and we do.

Hi cavediver, Because everything that exists at T=10^-43 has to get to the surface of your beach ball.Which to me would mean there is a whole lot of empty space in your beach ball at the present.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANTYou're still understanding the ballon analogy in three dimensions. People are used to thinking in three dimensions. But space-time occurs in four dimensions making it difficult for some, and impossible for others to think about. To help get around this difficulty we reduce the space-time problem to the two spatial dimensions of the ballon's surface and one time dimension of the balloon's expansion. The balloon is also huge: The visible Universe is only a quarter sized patch; which, to the patch people, looks perfectly flat (so far).There is no inside or outside of the balloon. Opposite sides of the balloon are not becoming increasingly distant through the balloon, but only across the surface. The path through the balloon has a never increasing length of zero because it doesn't exist. Hence, no marble particles lined up inside spreading out as the Universe expands. Only the surface expands because that's all there is to expand.At 10^-43 the balloon was tiny but expanding in all four dimensions. Then during the incredibly short interval between 10^-35 - 10^-33 there was an inflationary period where the ball expanded by a factor of at least 10²⁶before settling back to near today's rate. This inflationary expansion pushed the greater part of the balloon well beyond the horizon. The distance to this horizon =ct, where c = the speed of light and t = time elapsed since the event: 13.710⁹ Lightyears.What is beyond 13.710⁹ Lightyears? Ordinary, every day universe. The folks who live on the edge of our patch are the center of their patch. They see just as much universe spreading away from them on all sides as we do from us. But they aren't looking at the Universe in (not at) the same time we are. As we look over their way we see what they were like 13.710⁹ years ago. They see what they look like now and see us as we were 13.710⁹ years ago.It's quite fun trying to keep it all straight, really.AbE: It seems cavediver and I are talking about two different beach ball models. I'll edit mine as the balloon model to avoid confusion, and come back to make an additional note of how the two models are incompatible when I have a bit of time.Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

There is only the surface of the ball. T=0 is a point on the surface of the ball. T=10^-43 is a very small circle on the surface of the ball, surrounding T=0. We are looking at space-time, not just space. The ball is not the Universe at some time, T. It is the Universe at all times.In this model, the Universe is finite. Space, the latitude circles, only goes so far before it wraps back on itself.This Wikipedia diagram may make it clear: This is my ball, but cut open into the bell shape as I described before, so that it shows a continually expanding Universe.

You seem determined to conclude that the universe is eternal (by your definition of the word eternal/infinite) because you seem intent on concluding that "something cannot come from nothing" (again to use your terminology and definitions).Ignoring the difficulties of modern cosmology and the scientific meanings of tems for one moment - Can you explain to me how "eternal with no beginning" existence is superior in terms of observed phenomenon to an "uncaused beginning"?Purely in terms of your own internal logic why is one more plausible to you than the other?This is a feature of your argument I have never understood. Please explain.

cavediver,I am only going to respond because I want to hear the response. When the beach ball is manufactured.

---

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!