Creation

Indeed - and the counter is that nature is infinite. I disagree.First of all in an infinite universe the processes didn't start, they just continued. In a finite universe they didn't start either, T=0 is just an interesting feature of the geometry of the universe.Evolution explains a world with consciousness so that's covered.You however, have to explain a conscious god somehow existing eternally without being able to reference prior states. You can't do this so you can't explain consciousness at all by definition. That's a bigger problem. You have to assert consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, whereas science is looking at far simpler fundamentals from which evolution can develop in a well understood fashion.

This is a question and not a point of debate. I realize that mathematicians use infinities and that physicists are trying to eliminate infinities by reconciling reltivity and QM, but don't some physicists propose the possibility that the universe itself is infinite in size. (There is every possibility that I am out of my depth here. )

I thought you might. Fair enough but that still doesn't make a case for either an intelligent cause or a non-intelligent cause. It could still be either. Again, that could be by intelligent design or not. Mathematics tell us that time should be able to flow in either direction even though we only experience it in one direction,(or so I've read). Things like string theory involve multiple dimensions of time. If change can be experienced in more than one direction then we should be able to experience change infinitely as we are able to move around infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions.If consciousness is simply something that is a result of the evolutionary process then what is the process that produced evolution and so and so on and so on.? When we want to argue the support for our opposite opinions we are both faced with the same problem.As I've said before, I contend that it is far more reasonable to believe that the intelligence that we experience in our world is the result of intelligence as opposed to it being produced by chance from mindless particles.

It's not intended to. I am simply pointing out that appealing to a deity doesn't solve the problem and ascribing special properties to said deity either present their own problems, or could equally be applied to nature. Thus an appeal to a deity does not solve any problem that an appeal to nature could not also. Not quite - there is nothing we know of that prohibit a region of reality in which time flows in another direction...physics at best says regardless of the direction of flow, entropy would increase. It certainly opens up the possibility, but the extra dimensions could all be spatial. I think this is the general consensus, though some physicists have had some successes with additional time dimensions so it's still an open area of investigation. The geometry of spacetime does place limitations on our movement determined by the speed of light. It is possible for a region of spacetime could exist in which we are free to move around through the time dimension - but in such a case we would be constrained to a directional spatial situation. That is, we'd be able to go back in time, but we'd continuously be moving in a particular dimension. Examples of such possibilities would be beyond the event horizon of a black hole where the descent into the black hole's centre is an inevitable path through space that cannot be escaped and space time is very curved. But the mathematics is tricky. Though I think a prediction that the base of all these questions would be fundamental in nature. Just as a river flow is dynamic and interesting but is ultimately just jostling molecules which are themselves perturbations of a field.... I have no problems with there being a fundamental fact that has no prior explanation, but I expect the answer won't be a thinking being with motivations. An answer that has been given for many phenomena, but closer examination has shown it to be false. Our brains are wired evolutionarily to infer intent, it's been termed the hyperactive agency detection - it's a useful survival mechanism that causes us to be wary of a rustling in the bushes...but feelings don't mean truth.If you suppose our intelligence must come from another intelligence you are engaging in this practice. It may feel right, but we need more. We know that intelligence does come in a scale, we know its the product of an organ and we know that organs evolve and there is no need for this evolution to be directed.As I said - proposing an intelligence to explain intelligence doesn't explain intelligence. It would be like proposing that the sea came from a bigger sea and then suggesting there is some primordial and eternal sea that explains seas in general. Alternatively water exists as a molecular fusion of hydrogen and oxygen, which can be synthesized in stars which form...and we can get this explanation all the way back to the beginning. Are there further explanations beyond 'a period of highly dense energy existed'? Maybe. Is the explanation of the highly dense energy's existence likely to be a primordial sea of all seas who loves seas so much he'd create a universe with very apparently few of them relative to its size? Seems a bit far fetched.An explanation should advance us to deeper understanding. Explaining that the seas come from a primordial sea or that lightning originates from primordial creatures or that intelligence can only be explain by an intelligence says nothing, explains nothing. It cannot be the best explanation if it does not explain it. Why is God intelligent? Cannot be answered.Agreed -it seems there must be one question that cannot be answered. Often put as 'why is there something rather than nothing', but all our investigations leading to that, trying to understand what that something actually is, point to that something being very boring like...a field. Why does the field exist? It may be unanswerable, but if we're clever enough to ever answer it I suspect it would take the form of 'because it cannot not exist, it is existence and there is existence because existence exists'. I doubt we'll get there but 'God done it' only increases our questions, rather than satiates them. Does God even know why God exists?To conclude, proposing a deity doesn't explain anything. We know nature exists so proposing that isn't controversial. If you want to propose some new thing, you need to do better than say, 'I can think of no other way feature x could exist'. That's just a rationalization for giving up the search for an explanation borne out of owning an ape's brain. This is not to say this therefore proves God does not exist, but simply to point out that a lack of understanding does not justify resorting to some supernatural mind being responsible. Not a thousand years ago, not today.

No analogy is a perfect representation of reality. We use analogies to explain isolated aspects of reality.A hammer is also useless if you don't know how to use it. You almost have an inkling. The balloon is a good analogy because it's surface has no boundaries, just like the universe has no boundaries. Speak for yourself. I and millions of other people can imagine the surface of the balloon as it represents the universe. Don't project your own lack of imagination and/or understanding on everybody else. Wrong again. The picture is a 2D representation of a 3D object. Again, we are only looking at the surface of the balloon - and we are not specifying that it is a spherical balloon. The surface of the balloon in 2D represents the universe in 3D, just like the picture in 2D represents the shark in 3D. There's no such thing as a human lamb. Jesus was analogous to a lamb only as a sacrifice. We ignore all of the other aspects of a lamb just like we ignore all of the other aspects of the balloon. Use the "Find" function on your browser.

Those of us who accept science can't be expected to remember every detail of every science-denier's denial.

Hi ringo If you don't think the balloon has boundaries just keep putting air into it. You will find it's boundary. But the picture has width, height, and depth. That is not a 2d object. That is actually true because it was God that came to earth and was sacrificed on the cross at Calvary to restore mankind to a right relationship with God. In the old testament a for legged sacrifice was used for the same purpose. Why should I have to look up other peoples source? That is against site policy.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes I would hope that no one would believe the universe acts like raisins. Questions:1. Is the claim made that the space is what is expanding in the universe with objects not flying through space?2. Is the claim made that when expansion and inflation began it was at the speed of light?3. Is the claim made that no knowledge of the early universe can be seen until 380,000 years after the BB?4. Is it a fact the first atom was formed 380,000 years after the BB? My 6th grade math was a little more involved than what you are talking about. I never mentioned what my studies were but I can't let
it pass any longer. I went to 6th and 7th grade in Niagara Falls NY in 51 and 52. The school was on an accelerated program. That was the only 2 years of school I did not make straight A's.In the 6th grade our math covered algebra and geometry. In the 7th grade our math cover trigonometry and calculus. In English class we studied speed reading which has served me well because I love to read. I made a lot of A's those two years but everytime I started getting A's the work got harder. Glad you at least appreciate my motives.So how about coddling an old man and answer the questions I asked in this post.God Bless,

Hi Mod What cake are you talking about? When did fundamental paricles begin to exist? Again what cake are you talking about? I am not the one claiming that the space expanded at the speed of light. Everywhere I read anything about the early universe that is the speed given and some claim the space expanded faster than the speed of light. You keep referring to a cake. I am not baking a cake. I have a 3"ball of raisins that the space between each raisin begins to expand at the speed of light. That is what is said to happened at Planck Time, in the universe. Can you give me any evidence of anything that happened prior to 380,000 years after the BB. Again it is not my claim that the space everywhere was expanding at the speed of light.So whatever was there the space between each sub-atomic particle would be expanding at the seed of light. I don't have a cake thought experiment.I have a 3" ball of raisins. with enough raisins packed inside to spread out in every possible direction from a single point 1,000 raisins with space between each raisin to expand. Nothing but a raisin acts like a raisin. An assumption that might be true or not be true. It is not my description.

quote:

---

universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

---

Raisins are dried grapes that grow on a vine. There was something at Planck Time and this something is what the space between the sub-atomic particles expanded. My ball of raisins simply represent that existing material and what would happen to it if space expanded between the smallest division of the lump. There is no cake. There is only the universe which is represent by my 3" ball of raisins.All that I am trying to say is:If the space which would be between the smallest units of what existed at Planck Time began to expand at the speed of light in 1 millionth of a second the space between each unit would expand by 982.08 feet. There would be 186,000 miles between each unit in 1 second.What would be a mechanism that could cause the expansion to slow down?If my math is correct there is no way expansion took place as it is put forth in all the information I can find. Mod get your head out of the sand.The universe is a sphere and we are inside of it.
If you had a space craft that could travel at ten times the speed of light and you flew in a straight line and you were 10 years old when you started your journey you would not live long enough to reach the fabric of the universe if expansion is taking place as proposed. Because the space past our horizon would be expanding faster than you were flying. And it would not make any difference which direction you went in you would never reach the fabric of the universe.What I want to know is why you could fly in a circle like you can in an airplane around the world. Do you actually believe that the universe is like your balloon? Do you believe we live on the surface of the universe? It is a lie that you made up as I have not been talking about a cake.I simply start with a 3" ball of raisins that has enough raisins for 1,000 raisins in a row where the space can expand for 1 second between them at the speed of light.I proposed those raisins represent the sub atomic particles or whatever units they might have been at Planck Time.Space begins to expand at the speed of light for 1 second.At the end of 1 second there is 1,000 raisins with 186,000 miles of space between them. Show me where my math is wrong.God Bless,

Nobody could tell that from reading your posts. Not playing your game. You can argue with Modulus and AZPaul3 if you are up to it.

Yawn. Have you forgotten your question ICANT?

These are interesting discussions and I will briefly contribute some food for thought.

Where was the speed of light before the distance 186,000 miles even existed?
How did the maths break down in the early singularity?

​

Were laws discovered by humanity through testing or were they invented by humanity?

​

Does the concept of a singularity actually represent the origin of creation? In other words, without humanity, would math actually mean anything? would distance? would matter? would words themselves and definitions themselves?

​

If the answer is yes does this not mean that laws can exist without our need to define them? And if so, why is it considered silly to believe in God without evidence?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

The surface of the balloon has no boundaries. You can draw a continuous line in any direction on the surface of the balloon for thousands of miles and never cross a boundary. A picture does not have depth. So you understand that when we use a lamb to represent Jesus, we're not talking about wool. Now try to understand that when we use a balloon to represent the universe, we're not talking about air. The site policy is to cite a reference, which I did. I am not required to spoon-feed the material to you.

Hi NoNuked, What is your purpose here? Is it just to use up bandwidth?I am not playing a game when I ask questions.I learned a long time ago that you can not learn anything unless you ask questions. You can accept everything you are told by someone or you question what everyone says. Questioning what they say is a much better learning tool.I ask 4 simple questions that require a scientific answer and to you it is a game.

quote:

---

1. Is the claim made that the space is what is expanding in the universe with objects not flying through space?

​

2. Is the claim made that when expansion and inflation began it was at the speed of light?

​

3. Is the claim made that no knowledge of the early universe can be seen until 380,000 years after the BB?

​

4. Is it a fact the first atom was formed 380,000 years after the BB?

---

I thought those 4 questions were simple enough to answer. All that is required is four words, one for each question. But if someone wanted to expand on why each individual answer they gave was the correct one, that would be fine.But to you It is just a game, that I am playing.There are millions of people out there that could not answer those questions. Many would like to know the correct answer.Since you have belittled my education to the point I am an idiot, it would do no good for me to answer them. But you refuse to answer them. Why?So instead of sharing information you had rather blame me for playing a game.If you don't have any knowledge to share why do you hang around being an obstructionist? Seems like you are the one playing a game.God Bless,

Hi ringo I told you the exact location of the center of the picture. It depends on the dimensions of the paper used. If the paper is 11 x 8.5 x .004 the center is located at 5.5 x 4.25 x .002 So yes the picture does have depth just not much. The air and the inside surface of the balloon is all about the balloon that resembles the universe. Now you can tell me we can not see what is in the balloon. I think the inside of the balloon does have air that is similar to the inside of the universe. But in the meanwhile I will tell you that you can not tell me what is outside of the universe. You have never been there nor will you ever be there. Where is the material you referenced. You cited a bare link.God Bless,