Subjective Evidence of Gods

IamJoseph,You are being willfully ignorant.I have explained the definition of the word nature and natural causes extensively to you in order to assist you in making sense. By using terms incorrectly, in a way that you know does not make sense to most readers is not helping your arguments. You are actively, intentionally not making sense when you use words in the incorrect manner when you actually know it is wrong.Here it is again for you - Message 177I have also covered the reasons why it is difficult to rest a premise on an unwarranted assumption. You assumption is that God exists.I have covered this here - Message 200You are also making use of the false dichotomy logical fallacy.This fallacy involves a situation where only two possible alternatives are given when there are actually many.You supply two options only.Intelligent designer (you particular version of God outlined in the Hebrew Bible) and natural causes for the creation of the universe.There are many other possibilities.I notice you are about to derail this thread.Let me answer your first question though. No one can prove this one way or another. The universe being finite or infinite has not been proven by anyone. The only way this would ever be proven is if we find the edge of the universe. As this has not yet happened, no one knows with any certainty if the universe is infinite or not. You cannot answer this question either. Your bible saying the words "In the beginning" does not prove that the universe is finite. It could be argued that the words 'In the beginning' does not mean finite or infinite. I am aware that you believe that these words do mean the universe is finite. But in order for this to be correct, you would have to believe that God is unable to create an infinite universe. As your God is all powerful, then he could create an infinite universe. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hello Dawn, The currently offered two possile alternatives of IamJoseph -1. Intelligent design by a single God as outlined in the Jewish Bible.2. Natural causesFor a start, natural causes could mean many different things. The Big Bang theory has a few different mechanisms suggested. There is the Steady State Theory, not well supported anymore but still out there. There is a cyclical universe theory (New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang). The Big Bang Tehory is currently the best of what science has but no one is saying that it cannot be improved upon or totally scrapped if we a better theory. There are also theories regarding multiple universes, multiple dimensions etc. Cavediver would be a much better person to ask about these things.The second option given is the creation of the universe by God (specifically the God described in the Old testement)Other options -How about every other religious creation myth?Babylonian Creation MythAfrican Creation Myth - OloriNavajo Creation MythNorse Creation MythCreation Myth from IndiaJapanese Creation MythComanche Creation MythChinese Creation MythChelan Creation MythPima Creation MythMayan Creation MythMiwok Creation MythScandinavian (Norse) Creation MythsSalish Creation MythAustralian Aboriginal Creation MythHopi Creation MythTahitian Creation MythYokut Creation MythComanche Creation MythEgyptian Creation MythsAfrican - Mande, Yoruba Creation MythsMicmac Creation MythLakota Creation MythChinese Creation / Flood MythAssyrian / Babylonian Creation MythMaori Creation MythAztec Creation MythDigueno Creation MythApache Creation MythDakota Creation MythHungarian Creation MythIroquois Creation MythInuit Creation MythHuron Creation MythHawaiian Creation Myth(source : Forbidden)There are those alternatives.There are also alternatives to INTELLIGENT design.How about non deity intelligent design, non intelligent design, or accidental creation.Non deity intelligent design - What if our universe was created by an intelligent alien entity or entities from another universe or dimension?Non intelligent design - What if our universe was created by an all powerfull figure with godlike abilities who was actually an idiot? My 14 month old daughter randomly put four lettered blocks on top of each other that read the word 'star'. This is unintelligent design. She has created something, but with no intent or the intelligence to realise what she has done.Accidental design - what if a God figure does exist? What if he/she/it did actually create the universe by accident? What if it was an accident that he/she/it is totally unaware of and we have just made up religions in order to give some meaning to our lives. He/she/it could be somewhere else, anywhere else as Gods can exist in the no space/no time that existed before the universe was created without knowing or caring about this universe at all.There is also the possibility that we have not come up with the correct answer yet.So, there are around 50 different alternatives. I have not attempted to solve anything. I have not claimed to have solved anything. I have not purported to solve any mystery. This comment is an attempt at shit slinging.I pointed out a logical fallacy. The false dichotomy fallacy. That is all.Just to let you know, that is a fallacious appeal to the past. Just because people have been pushing something for thousands of years, does not mean it has any more credibility to an idea from today.Are these enough alternatives to show I do know what I am talking about? Or are you of the mind that the only two possibilties for the creation of the universe is the process outlined in the Jewish bible and natural causes. Even though 'natural causes' is unspecific and could mean many things including theories as yet unthought of. To refute natural causes you would have to claim that any future theories are also incorrect without them actually existing yet.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hello Dawn, The creation of the universe is the specific action I was discussing. Not existence. The creation of the universe. I have no desire to get into any existential debates about existence. There are unending debates already occuring regarding this issue. For example, if humans were not here, would the universe exist? Something like if a tree falls in the forest and noone was around, would it still make a sound. I find these philisophical discussions boring and ultimately pointless.The issue i was discussing is the creation of the universe.Specifically, two possible options.1. The creation story as outlined in the Old Testement.2. natural causes.The creation myth of the OT is one of many different creation myths. Thus it is not the only option with regards to supernatural creation theories. Natural causes can refer to any number of known and unknown theories. Thus it cannot really be used as a single option.I could change the options to be thus -1. The creation story as outlined in the Old Testement.2. The creation story as discussed in Hindu mythology (Brahma, the Hindu God of creation).This is another example of the false dichotomy fallacy as it gives only two options when others exist. I will always applaud a Star Trek reference.However, there is a third and forth option not considered by Kirk or Spock. The third option is : They are responding in a manner that we cannot understand or detect. The forth option is that the subject of their communication is unaware of the original communication and is not aware it needs to respond to anything.For example,the third alternate : I have recently studied chemical plant communication. This is only a relatively recent discovery. Plants have been communicating with one another (even different species) all this time and we have not known about it. Lets say that we have been communicating with a plant and it has been responding by way of chemical communication in the air. We have not known of this method and we have not known what it meant until very recently.Example of the forth alternate : if aliens came to Earth in the 1st century AD and blasted communications to us using standard radiowaves, humanity would never have known. They may have said we were unable or unwilling to respond. This is not the case, we would not have known that any communication was even being attempted.I reckon Picard would have known this but I am biased. But enough Star Trek.The two options given were not the only alternatives.The first option is one very specific method of creation by a very specific type of entity for very specific reasons.There are other options to this including other Gods, other beings who are not Gods, other methods of creation, other intentions and even no intentions for the creation.The second option was very non specific. Natural causes covers many different options. It also covers options yet to be discovered.At the very least, the absolute very least, to be logical, there could be three options.1. Creation as outlined in the Old Testement by God.2. Currently known natural causes.3. Unknown causes as yet established.You cant assume that at this point in time, we have all of the possible options known to us.I do understand what you are talking about with regards to eternality of a being or the eternality of matter.However, this is not the issue I was talking about.I was specifically talking about the two options given.PS. I hope you dont mind me adding one of your comments to my signature. It seems fitting and it is poor form to make up your own nickname.

Hello Just Being Real,You make a large number of assumptions throughout this post to get to your conclusion. Lots of steps with lots of assumtions leave lots of other possible answers, not just the conclusion you have reached. I dont know about IMJ but you are correct. Not seeing something is a scientific observation. Testing a drug to see if it works and finding nothing is a result. It all depends on how you word your hypothosis. This holds up until you choose to introduce a God who is capable of anything. If the God of the Bible is capable of anything, he is certainly capable of creating an infinite universe. If God is indeed all powerful, then the words 'in the beginning' do not prove a finite universe. God could have created an infinite universe 'in the beginning'. Unless you belive that God is not capable of doing this. This is a bit of a leap. What exactly are you referring to as being finite and infinite? Are you talking about a resource of some kind, time maybe? We know that finite things exist now, but how does this prove that something infinite existed beforehand. Is it not possible that the finite 'thing' you are discussing did not originate from a previous finite thing? I would not, no. From this point on, you are discussing ideas based upon unreliable premises.The idea of using current known methods to test for a Godlike intelligence is problematic. It is possible to see patterns in clouds, this does not prove that the clouds were created by an intelligent force. This is a slightly different wording of the arguement from design or the teleological arguement.Complexity does not prove design. Complexity does not prove there is a God. A percieved purpose to an object or animal does not prove intelligence, intelligent design or the existence of god. This is an appeal to ignorance. Just because something is so complex we dont understand it, does not mean that there is a God. The only conclusion is not an intelligent creator. That is one option. Another option is that we have not performed enough research (or been imaginative enough) to have other options. Just because we have not fully worked it out yet does not mean that God did it. Who has scientifically demonstrated this? Who has scientifically demonstrated that an infinite 'it'exists? Can you site your sources? That could be any number of different deities. Pick a religion at random and you will find a name or names that fit that description.You have reached this conclusion through a number of logical leaps, fallacies and the all important faith.This proves nothing really.

Just be real,You are missing one key issue.You are missing the common creationist habit of altering the story to fit with known science.I could quite easily twist most of the stories to mean whatever I wanted them to mean to match current scientific theory. I could even say some bits are metaphorical.the first example you used - This does not violate the second rule. Tiamat was made of earth (he was a god so he can be made of anything). So this actually proves the Babylonian myth to be true. The Earth really is made of earth, Tiamat was made from Earth. Scientifically proven to be true.the second example... You have read the scripture incorrectly. How closed minded of you. Again, the female deity in question was made from earth. This supports the story. What is actually meant by milk lake, we now know from correct interpretation is merely water. We know that it was underground water that is absorbed by the grass where cows and goats eat it to create milk. This is scientifically verifiable also. How amazing is that. How did these ancient people know about how plants used water and the cows ate the grass and this is how they made milk. This is almost like a prophesy come true. Scientifically verified facts. It does not violate condition 2 at all.Your third example... You have misinterpreted the scripture again. We now know that this story (which is actually fact because it has been around for thousands of years and heaps of people believed it) refers to the first people. Like Adam and Eve, except that the Christian myth is just a copy of this myth and not true. The lady did not marry the actual sun, how silly would that be, she married her son. Then they had lots of children. It does not violate condition 2.your example 4... You really need theology lessons. You keep getting the interpretation wrong. This is metaphorical. The giants in question are actually the large solar bodies that ended up making our solar system. The largest body is Ymir, which means 'all of the stuff that made up the solar system' in the local tongue. Is that not amazing? How did these ancient people know that the earth was a planet among many planets. This was way outside any possible knowledge they had. This is 100% verifiable proof that this is the correct creation story.Your 5th example... This one you have pretty close to right. Purusha was not really a person. It was the name given to all of the elements that made up the earth. including the elemenst found in humans today. Is that not amazing. How did these ancient people know that humans were made up of the exact same elements as everything else. This is 100% scientific proof that this is the correct myth.your 6th example... You are missing the point entirely by your incorrect interpretation of scripture again. The jeweled spear was actually lightning and the drops of blood was actually lava. The island is volcanic. Isnt that amazing. How did these ancient people have such an amazing understanding of volcanology? It even says that the tears (lava) coagulated into the island. That is exactly how it was formed. This proves with 100% scientif certainty that this is the correct myth. Correct. I read through a few of them and they were the same sort of bullshit. I stopped checking them after the first few. My rebuttal is still solid. You have only covered a very small part of my post.your 7th example... This one is totally correct. The universe was black. there was no light. And the egg represents the beginning of life (not a real egg silly). Pangu actually did not just change the egg into the world. First of all Pangu said 'let there be a seperation of the land and the sky'. And it was so. Then he said 'let there be light' and then he seperated the lights into the sun and the moon. See how close that matches the Big Bang Theory. This shows witrh 100% certainty that this one is the correct myth.I cant belive how blinded by your beliefs you are to the truth.I will pray for you and one day you will see the truth as I have.One day, (insert random god figure here) will save you and you will be taken to (insert random afterlife here) forever.I could go on, but you are tired and bored.Will you be dicussing anything else from my post?

Just be real, The creation of anything infinite is not an oxymoron. The beginning is a statement of time. The universe is measured in distance. An infinite universe, as in a universe that has no boundary, can be created by an all powerful god. You mash together time and space. This is a mistake. A universe with infinite space can have a beginning.I quick wiki search on infinite in relation to cosmology yields this...

quote:

---

In ancient cosmologies, the sky was perceived as a solid dome, or firmament.[9] In 1584, Bruno proposed an unbounded universe in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds: "Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve around these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."

​

Cosmologists have long sought to discover whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology; if one travelled in a straight line through the universe perhaps one would eventually revisit one's starting point.

​

If, on the other hand, the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe. The Planck spacecraft launched in 2009 is expected to record the cosmic background radiation with 10 times higher precision, and will give more insight into the question of whether the universe is infinite or not.

---

(source : Infinity - Wikipedia)As to you comment "according to science it definitely had a beginning."No scientist will say that the universe "definitely had a beginning". You source states that the universe as we understand it today had a beginning. However, this is a hypothesis. Stephen Hawking's newer work includes another hypothesis. Again, a hypothesis. Not definite.

quote:

---

the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation.

---

(Source : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404))His idea is that there was a beginning in time but a universe without boundaries.There is another recent theory suggesting that the Big Bang was not the beginning.

quote:

---

According to Turok, who teaches at Cambridge University, the Big Bang represents just one stage in an infinitely repeated cycle of universal expansion and contraction. Turok theorizes that neither time nor the universe has a beginning or end.

---

(Source : Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning | WIRED)Science has theories and hypothoses but no definites.The only message I am really trying to get accros here is that 'in the beginning' God had the ability to create an infinite universe. From what I have read, being all powerful means he can do this. Unless you are telling me that God is incapable of doing this? That is true, an infinite length of finite things does not solve the problem. However, having something finite now, does not prove that something infinite existed beforehand. There is no proof of this. There is conjecture. ok, lets run with this for a while. What do you actually mean by specificity. The def of specificity is : the quality or state of being specific. How does that differ from the argument from design? So basically you believe that if you use the term 'specificity' in an unusual manner, people wont recognise the arguement from design?Can you provide a link to the work you are reading that uses specificity so I can have a read. Or is this your own work? yep, this sounds like the arguement from design to me.Are you saying that the purpose of an object indicates that an object is designed? If it walks like a duck and fucks like a duck its usually a duck. Your argument has all the hallmarks of the standard arguement from design apart from the swapping of the word complexity with specificity.And I have also read a fair few of your arguments already over on The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLYNo, not at all. I am saying that we need to be open to the possability that we have not discovered the true theory yet. Deciding to stop thinking because we have chosen to believe that God did it is not a scientificaly valid option. We always need to keep open the option that we just dont know. There is nothing wrong with faith. Dont treat me suggesting you have faith as a negative. In order to make your arguement, you require faith. In order to suggest an all powerful God started it, you need faith. Also, in Message 304 you stated this : "my main source (the Bible)". This indicates that you have faith. You are using a bronze age book of myths and legends as you main source. And your use of a variation of the Teleological argument to prove god exists requires faith.And phrases like this : You have come to a single conclusion. In your mind the only conclusion. And you have come to this conclusion without any doubt in about 30 lines of text. To solve one of the worlds most argued about issues, without any doubt, in 30 lines of text, that requires a large amount of faith.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

IamJoseph, Just because you have not looked for positions that do not support a universe maker does not mean those positions do not exist. Just because you have not studied hard enough, does not mean that these hypothoses and theories do not exist. There are many hypothoses and theories based upon scientific premises and they are not fiction. You being unaware of these ideas does not mean that they do not exist. It just means that you can make the incorrect statement that you have made.Here are some positions, based on scientific premeses that do not support a universe maker. Including the universe maker of the Bible.Stephen Hawking on the origin of the universe
(Source : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404))sorry for the long quote but I was not able to cut much out and still cover everything.

quote:

---

If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was what happened before the beginning? What was God doing before He made the world? Was He preparing Hell for people who asked such questions? The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions, or antimonies, either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the antithesis. Both the thesis and the antithesis depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was Absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past to the infinite future, independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background. This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today.
However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence, to look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.
In terms of the positivist approach, one can compare two models of the universe. One in which the universe was created last year and one in which the universe existed much longer. The Model in which the universe existed for longer than a year can explain things like identical twins that have a common cause more than a year ago. On the other hand, the model in which the universe was created last year cannot explain such events. So the first model is better. One can not ask whether the universe really existed before a year ago or just appeared to. In the positivist approach, they are the same. In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting point. The situation changed radically however, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the hundred inch telescope on Mount Wilson, in the 1920s.

​

Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies. By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as were moving away. This is what one would have in a universe that was unchanging with time. But to his surprise, Hubble found that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the further galaxies were from us, the faster they were moving away. The universe was not unchanging with time as everyone had thought previously. It was expanding. The distance between distant galaxies was increasing with time.

​

The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century, or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning. If galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago. Was this the beginning of the universe? Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God, to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time, but didn't have a beginning. One was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle in 1948.
[steady state theory explanation snipped as it has been abandoned]
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul. At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God. I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition, like Galileo.

​

The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.

​

In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. The best way of doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories. Richard Feynman was a colorful character, who played the bongo drums in a strip joint in Pasadena, and was a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low, which is bad news for mice.

​

The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state. But how did the histories start? This is the Origin question in another guise. Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science? In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off. As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time however, seemed to be different. It appeared to be separate from space, and to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.

​

Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point, at least so I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole. The same laws of Nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning; that it would be a place where the normal laws broke down. The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science. The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

​

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

​

The world record for inflation was in Germany after the First World War. Prices rose by a factor of ten million in a period of 18 months. But that was nothing compared to inflation in the early universe. The universe expanded by a factor of million trillion trillion in a tiny fraction of a second. Unlike inflation in prices, inflation in the early universe was a very good thing. It produced a very large and uniform universe, just as we observe. However, it would not be completely uniform. In the sum over histories, histories that are very slightly irregular will have almost as high probabilities as the completely uniform and regular history. The theory therefore predicts that the early universe is likely to be slightly non-uniform. These irregularities would produce small variations in the intensity of the microwave background from different directions. The microwave background has been observed by the Map satellite, and was found to have exactly the kind of variations predicted. So we know we are on the right lines.

​

The irregularities in the early universe will mean that some regions will have slightly higher density than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra density will slow the expansion of the region, and can eventually cause the region to collapse to form galaxies and stars. So look well at the map of the microwave sky. It is the blue print for all the structure in the universe. We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice.

​

We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe and of reality itself. Although the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe must have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. It would initially expand at an ever increasing rate.

​

During this so called inflationary period, the marriage of the two theories predicted that small fluctuations would develop and lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non uniformities in the cosmic microwave background, with exactly the predicted properties. So it seems we are on our way to understanding the origin of the universe, though much more work will be needed. A new window on the very early universe will be opened when we can detect gravitational waves by accurately measuring the distances between space craft. Gravitational waves propagate freely to us from earliest times, unimpeded by any intervening material. By contrast, light is scattered many times by free electrons. The scattering goes on until the electrons freeze out, after 300,000 years.

​

Despite having had some great successes, not everything is solved. We do not yet have a good theoretical understanding of the observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating again, after a long period of slowing down. Without such an understanding, we cannot be sure of the future of the universe. Will it continue to expand forever? Is inflation a law of Nature? Or will the universe eventually collapse again? New observational results and theoretical advances are coming in rapidly. Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age old questions. Why are we here? Where did we come from?

---

There is also this theory, again, not requiring a universe maker...
(Source : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=been-the...)

quote:

---

the big bang is not a one-of-a-kind event but part of a recurring cycle. "What we're motivated by string theory to believe is that the big bang is not what we've always thought--a beginning of space and time, where temperature and energy diverge," Steinhardt says. "Rather it is a transition between the current expanding phase and a preexisting contracting phase."

---

Some information on the cyclic model : Cyclic model - WikipediaHere is another theory based on scientific premeses the require no universe maker...(Source : http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf)

quote:

---

a model of the universe which provides a solution to the mystery of its origin, as well as to the paradox posed by Kant, is presented. Implications of the model, one which appears to be compatible with general relativity and standard hot big bang theory, include that the universe has neither a beginning nor ending, but yet is finite; singularities are never actually encountered in nature; events are neither determined by initial or final conditions; problems such as why the universe has a low entropy past, or conditions at the big bang appear to be so special, require no causal explanation; and that time travel is not possible.

---

You can also check this out for more information. It is pretty heavy going though, I will be of no help if you want any of it explained : The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)I am happy that I could clear up the issue you were having locating current scientific theories and hypothoses (that are not works of fiction) that do not support a universe maker for the existing universe. there is no absolute certainty in science. There is also no absolute evidence of a universe maker. You have been asked on mulitple occasions to provide your absolute evidence but you never have. If you have this absolute evidence, please publish it. I will personally travel to Sweden and congratulate you upon your receiving the Nobel Prize for your discovery. Please dont keep it a secret. Why dont you write to Hawking with your idea as he has provided another source (not really a source as suggesting there has to be a source in the statement you have already set up conditions to your advantage) as a potential.There is also always an option to dismiss. There is always the option that we dont know. This is not an absolute dismissal of any idea. It is an admission that we dont know everything yet. All of sciences most respected figures do not agree with your first statement. I hope Stephen Hawking is respected enough to invalidate your statement. I have covered this issue over at Message 200Lucky for us we have objections with alternate sound premises then isnt it?

IamJoseph, i have been struggling with your use of the word law to describe everything from Judicial system laws, scientific laws, theories and other uses that i cant even identify.Help me out here.What laws do you believe cause thunder and lightning? What laws 'turn on the rain cycle'? What are these corresponding laws? It is not on topic but I am wondering how you establish the beginning point of a cycle. Dont bother answering that, just food for thought. So the (so far undefined) 'laws' that govern the rain cycle are also a deciding factor on the existence of life and also the existence of the universe?

You have mentioned that the Hebrew Bible has changed the universe forever.examples... How exactly was the universe changed? What was it like before the writing of this particular book? What changes can we detect now. Exactly when did all of these changes occur?Also, considering that there are people on this Earth who have not even heard of the book, how would you suggest an area 1000 light years from Earth has been changed?

Hello Dawn Bertot, I did not say that philosphical debates are boring nad pointless. I said that I find them boring and pointless. Me personally. Thats why I dont get involved in them. Thats fair enough. But as I was not talking about existence with regards to the false dichotomy, this is irrelevant. Your replies are simply not correct. The word used is respond. Not communicate. It is possible and quite common for something to have a response without the target receiving the response.In the first example, the responder is able to respond. But the receiver is not able to understand the response. This means that communication has failed, but the response was sent by a willing and able subject.The second example, the subject can be both willing and able to respond but is unaware of the original communication. This means that communication has failed. But the subject was willing and able to respond.Respond is different to communicate. Communication is a two way street. Response does not have this restriction. Are you suggesting that plant to plant communication does not occur. I certainly hope it does because I am considering this subject for my masters. If you actually do not believe or understand this issue, let me know and I will provide ample evidence. You are confusing response with communicate.A response does not require the receiver to actually receive the response. A response can be without a receiver at all. If the word communication was in your original example, then everything you have said would make perfect sense. As the word response was in the original example, it does not make sense.

IamJoseph,I will respond to this message first because it is quick and easy to deal with this idiocy.You comment was that the Hebrew Bible changed the universe.These are your statements... So, what you are telling me is that the change that the introduction of the Hebrew Bible has created on the universe is expansion.Are you serious?The introduction of the Hebrew Bible caused the expansion of the universe. What was it doing prior to the writing of this book?Can you supply the data showing any evidence of this? I will assume from that reply that you believe that the Old Testament is known to every human being on earth. Is that correct.Check this link : Uncontacted Tribes Discovered In Brazil (PHOTOS)It is one of many articles regarding uncontacted tribes. This particular group is in the Amazonian Jungle. They have had no known contact with any outsiders.Do you believe that somewhere amongst those huts is a copy of the old Testament?There are people on earth who have not heard of your favourite book.It may be a bit painful for you to hear this, but there are plenty of people who do know about your favourite book and think it is a work of fiction. Sorry to tell you this but more people believe it is fiction that believe it is true. I know this will come as a blow to you as you seem to see it all so clearly but it is the truth.

IamJoseph, They are not my assertions. I am not a physicist. They are the theories and hypothoses of some of the most brilliant physicists today. I am sure you are qualified to stand against them all. I think with this reply, the last shred of hope i had that you have anything valid to say disappeared.Ok, so you think that Newton, Einstein and Roger Penrose are greater than Hawking. And you add the bonus that they all believed in a universe source. Of course you do not supply any references for your claims so they are most likely things you hope are true.Do you have any idea of how science works?One person has an idea, they test that idea tro the best of their abilities, if it stands up to the tests of the time and no other better theory exists, then that theory is accepted. Until someone comes along and disproves or improves that theory. This is what has happened to the scientists you mentioned.Do you do any research or do you just type what you hope is true and pray that you are debating morons?Newton - 1642 - 1727 << this bit is quite important <<
(source : Isaac Newton - Wikipedia) You are correct in calling him a great scientist. He was a great scientist for his time.His theories for the universe were supported for three centuries.Then they were superceded by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. (source : Albert Einstein - Wikipedia)Einstein - 1879 - 1955 <
(source : Albert Einstein - Wikipedia)

​

You are correct in saying that Einstein was a brilliant scientist. What you missed is that Einstein was a brilliant scientist for his time

​

In 1917 (<​

Dawn Bertot,I am going to chalk this up to another issue with your definitions of words.I know from reading many other posts on this matter that you will not believe that you are incorrect in your interpretation but I will tell you anyway. If the reciever does not get the response, for any reason, it does not mean that the response is not given. I will give you a really simple example. I just went outside and screamed 'Dawn Bertot does not get it' as loud as possible. I was willing to give that response. I was able to give that response. You did not receive that response. This means that communication failed. The response was given.I was not unable to respond. I actually performed the action of response. I performed the action of response to your comments. I performed an actual physical and audible response. I was willing and able to respond.Do you get it?Probably not.But that is your problem, not mine. I can only explain things to you as best i can. If you choose to ignore the simple explanation, what point is there in continuing to show different examples of how you are incorrect. You have only proven my point here. Communication is different from response. Communication does require and interaction between two (or more). A response can be undetected by the target. That is the key difference you are missing.As for plant responses - It is a chemical response, terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics etc. If you were eating a certain plant, it would respond by releasing these chemicals. It is a response that you would most likely not detect (depending on the plant). This is another example. The plant is willing and able to respond. But you are not aware of the response. The response has occured. Unable does have a meaning for both. The ship may be responding in 5000 different ways that the Enterprise cannot detect. This does not mean that the first ship is unwilling or unable to respond. It means they are unable to communicate. Which is different from being unable to respond. This is an example of communication. Which is different from a response. In a recent post IMJ disagreed (calling their statements madness among many other things) with Stephen Hawking, Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein and Roger Penrose. All in one post. I doubt anyone can discuss anything with IMJ and get any benefit from it. The key issue is the definition of response. From what I can tell, you belive that response and communicate are the same thing. They are not. The four options I supplied are valid. No logic or rangling required. With the correct understanding of the two terms, it is not complicated.

how about we run through that again.this time try not to avoid answering the actual questions. The question was, what changes did the introduction of the Hebrew Bible have on the universe.Your statements again - You have stated that the Hebrew Bible has changed the universe forever.The question, once again, is :What changes, specifically, did the Hebrew Bible make to the universe?I will word it differently :The universe has been changed by the Hebrew Bible how exactly?or how about this way :What changes have been detected since the Hebrew Bible has been written have been attributed to that book?One more time to make sure you understand the question you are being asked :The universe has been altered in some way, and has been altered forever (I assume you mean altered for all future time) by the Hebrew Bible, what is the alteration (change) that has been detected?your answer that the universe has expanded does not answer that question. Unless you can show me that this expansion began or has been altered in some way with the introduction of the Hebrew Bible.Have you given any thought to my great debate challenge yet? Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

What does any of these scientists religious affiliations have to do with the science they produced?It has not effect on it whatsoever.I agree that Newton was brilliant. Great. He was brilliant.But that does not change the fact that Newtonian Physics was superceded by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.Even if he was the highest religious leader of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, it would not change the fact that his theories have been replaced with better ones.He was also an alchemist. How much extra credit does this get him for you?Einstein also did not believe in the personal god of the old testament. Not that this makes any difference whatsoever to the work that he performed. The science that you have said is madness in your rebuttal where you ranted against Hawking's theory.And Penrose is an athiest. Not that this makes any differnce to the scientific research he has performed.What about the process of science is it that you so blatantly missunderstand that makes you believe that one scientists works remain the best possible set of theories for all of time?What about the process of science is it that you so blatantly misunderstand that makes you believe that the scientists religious affiliation makes any difference to the work that they do?I am unsure why you are pushing these scientists as supporters of your cause. You spent the majority of your last post ridiculing it.I just want to confirm something though. How long have you been studying physics, what is your physics education background that has helped you come to such quick and easy conclusions refuting Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein and Roger Penrose (and Immanuel Kant in philosophy)?From how quickly and fully you ridiculed Stephen Hawking's work (and Einstein and Penrose), your theoretical physics background must be fantastic. Who is messing with the Old Testament. I cant help that your bronze age myth is not particularly credible. The scientists you chose to name performed scientific work. This scientific work happens to contradict your favourite myth. Regardless of the religious affiliation of the scientists, they still have viable scientific alternatives to your favourite creation myths.That was what you said did not exist.I have shown you they do indeed exist.So you original statement that they do not exist is wrong.It will do you no harm to admit this.You claimed that the theories I outlined did not exist. They do, I have shown them to you.You were wrong.Again.Trying to avoid this fact by cutting and pasting random bios of scientists whose work actually refute you comments is an unusual tactic.