Best evidence for Creation

Hi Phat - I think the relevant argument is that if we insist on the need for a creator for the Universe, we must also insist on the need for a created creator. But if we are happy to relax the point, and accept that the Universe could exist without the need for a creator, that then allows us to consider also an uncreated creator... I don't know about purpose, but you are a fixed permanent immutable part of our Universe. Your limited span of time merely fixes your position in the 4d space-time. In the same way that you cannot expect to be at all places in the Universe, nor can you really expect to be at all times. That doesn't diminish your role...

ICANT,You may want to continue reading your Hawkings paper a bit more than just the first line.Heres a quote from it

quote:

---

At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

---

If the laws of physics break down, then there is no way of knowing for sure when or how a beginning occured.Here he further explains what is meant,

quote:

---

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.

---

So its not that 'time began at the Big Bang', what he is saying is that we might as well say that time began at the Big Bang since events prior have no observable consequence.Here again he repets that,

quote:

---

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

---

UNDETERMINED BEGINNING...I think thats a pretty clear statement.However, I would say that String Theory may be closing this gap.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

So are you saying that neither is a possibility?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."

Not in any way that allows one to talk about existence coming into being. Both would have to extend across this non-existence/existence boundary, which immediately means that your non-existence isn't.

If the BBT only covers from T=10^-43 the universe had to exist at T=10^-43 as it was already expanding.Hawking has imaginary time or vertical time at T=0. Which I call eternal time.Hawking Turok have an instanton that becomes a self-expanding open universe.So I am not sure what Hawking truly believes.Concerning whether Hawking was right about a beginning about 15 billion years ago you said: I believe he was wrong as the universe has always existed in some form. Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed. Why is my statement incorrect?The universe did not exist.
The universe does now exist.
To exist now it had to come into existence.So in essence you are saying:The universe did not have to come into existence to exist now.Could you please explain how that is possible.As I don't understand the logic.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 have been talking about the universe coming into existence.Not about existence coming into existence.I believe existence has always been. I do have a different name for existence.I believe the mass and energy that our universe was formed from has always existed just not in the form we see it today.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."

This is only true locally - globally there is no such restriction... ...and so this becomes merely an assertion. This is a meaningless statement, and hence your argument fails. You've read Hawking's work with Hartle on the no-boundary proposal and also his work with Turok, so you should know by now.

seemed to predict the universe had a beginning.That seems to suggest it came into existence.they could not determine how the universe would have begun.That seems to suggest the how is unknown. I have read about string theory and brane theory.The problem with those are how do you see past the hot beginning. Here Son Goku gives the earliest temperature we know. If it was that hot and that dense how do you trace anything past that point?Imagination?Faith?Some other way?God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Fixed link

---

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

What you mean by this is "At some point in time the Universe did not exist." and "At this point in time the Universe does exist."As time is an integral part of the Universe ” time doesn't exist without the Universe ” there has never been a point in time that the Universe has not existed. So how could it be said, in any normal sense of the phrase, that the Universe came into existence?Edited by lyx2no, : To make sense.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.One hot lesbian.

Do you mean inside our universe as locally?Then what would globally be and how would you know? One shared by those who believe in string theory, brane theory and the bounce theory. I think we agree the universe exists.I think the universe has always existed in some form. You disagree saying that is an assertion. So you do not think it has always existed in some form.I say if it has not always existed it had to have a beginning and come into existence. You disagree saying it has not always existed but it did not have to come into existence.I asked you to explain how that was possible.Instead of answering yourself you proposed Hawking's explanation. I know what his explanation I was asking for your explanation.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. Locally means within a sufficiently small volume to avoid non-trivial topological considerations. Really, have you asked them all? Given that I am/was a string/brane theorist amongst other things, how does that work? They are essentially the same.

Did I mention time as you and I know it?If I did I am sorry as I have not been talking about time as we know it. Time as we know it only exists inside the universe.The only kind of time that can exist outside the universe would be imaginary time or eternal time.String theory, brane theory and bounce theory would require eternal time.I am still convinced that the universe existing today and Hawking and Peebles saying it had a beginning is the best evidence for creation.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."

quote:

---

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

---

ICANT reply, I think you are jumping the gun, it seems to predict that the beginniing, if there was one, is currently undetermined.Also note that the Laws of science breakdown at the singularity making the 'beginning' currently unknowable. Therefore to boldly state that there is a beginning is a leap of faith. ...your link wasn't to Son Goku's explanation.But i'll take your word that 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees, is the actual number.So what, Son Goku is refering to the Universe at a particular time after T=O, how is that a problem for String or M-theory? I don't see how a particular temperature creates a problem for String theory. Could you explain...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Would T=0 qualify as locally? or T=10^-43 ? I will review my notes later and see why I came to those conclusions.
Church in 45 minutes.I notice you did not mention the bounce theory as that is a given. I do remember you saying that you skipped the standard theory and went to the Hawking Hartle no boundary theory.I still haven't figured out where the imaginary time or the point could exist as there would have been an absence of any thing. Because every thing, time, space, gravity, matter and energy are all part of the universe.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."

Most definitely not. There is no such thing as a 'bounce theorist' - it is just one idea. there has never been an 'absence of any thing'